Yet again, the British courts acting illegally as it suites them. I am pretty sure that Assange's trial already has a written ending.
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.
The existence of this box, the descriptions of his treatment... He's not the first person to undergo this and he won't be the last. Setting aside Assange, is there ever a time when this treatment is not crippling and dehumanizing? I'm trying to imagine a need for something like this, and maybe I'm not imaginative enough, but I can't figure out why such awful conditions were built in the first place.
It's a way to cement power and the perception of power. Skirting international law like this sends a message that you can do whatever you like. It's not a lie, either. Abu Dhabi is a pretty clear signal that America plays by the rules until we don't.
> I'm trying to imagine a need for something like this, and
> 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.
> For somebody who is a high escape, high assassination or generally high risk
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 tried to reply to this thread, but the thread was flagged for a while. Not sure what that was about.
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.
I had to "vouch" for the article, no idea why it got flagged off of the front page. I read back through the guidelines and I'm pretty sure this is a useful and insightful article for the community [1].
Probably because people are getting tired of this deluge of Assange stories. From this blog alone we have one every day.
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.
I hadn't really followed the story up-to now, followed the link from the first of this "one every day" (this is the fifth of this series, hardly a deluge) and have been completely appalled that this is happening in my country. This is the trial of a journalist who faces life imprisonment for revealing war-crimes, and people are "tired" of it. I expected better.
> 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].
People in governmental authority positions seem to want to make an example of Julian Assange in order to discourage others from following in his steps.
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.