The Armoured Glass Box Is an Instrument of Torture
craigmurray.org.uk
craigmurray.org.uk
Why, for example, is he even being held in prison? He's innocent until proven guilty, even by the law of the land. Instead he is held in maximum security reserved for the worst of criminals.
> law?
I don't think that warrants him being treated like a terrorist, even if you believe he has a high chance of fleeing.
> maybe I'm not imaginative enough, but I can't figure out
> why such awful conditions were built in the first place.
For somebody who is a high escape, high assassination or generally high risk. Somebody with enough money for example could arrange for an escape attempt at the court itself.
Unfortunately it's also used for anybody who acts "against the state", i.e. whistleblowers. Such cases do not occur without consent from high levels of government.
I don't know if it still in use, but Italy had at least a bunker court for mafia trials which could withstand even missile attacks. In case of high risk targets, I feel it would be better to ensure the safety of every person inside the court, instead of enclosing just one person inside a box which could still be opened, after spilling enough blood.
To me, it seems the glass box is used only for the psychological effect and justified with the security concerns.
I generally agree with the author's assessment. It seems as if the goal of his treatment is to mask a suicide or cause one. It just goes to show you that we the people should always be suspicious of those in positions of power, because it may be abused.
And I haven't seen a "new comment" in months now. It has been talked to death. You won't convince me, I won't convince you. It's all well-rehearsed sound bites.
This blog is interesting (at least to me) because the guy is actually reporting first-hand from the court that will decide his fate.
Sure, read his blog. I still maintain that there has not been a single interesting comment – on either side – in the discussion threads.
Otherwise, racism, climate change, healthy diet, etc. would have to be guaranteed constant front page placement.
Important issues can be boring, they can also lead to discussions that only re-hash well-known positions.
Assange stories are a good example of that effect.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find
> interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups.
> If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be:
> anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Hackers _are_ interested in this story for many reasons. People re-hashing positions you happen to find boring is not a good measurement of what should stay or not.
I still don't understand why this was manually pulled from the front page.
> Otherwise, racism, climate change, healthy diet, etc.
> would have to be guaranteed constant front page placement.
They do occasionally end up on the front page when people find the topics interesting. For example this study on "night owls" [2].
Yes, it is. The mods have repeatedly said so.
Which answers this why it was pulled.