Saudi blogger freed from prison after four months A Saudi blogger imprisoned in early December has been released. Fouad al-Farhan was arrested for "purposes of interrogation" it was never clear exactly what his offence was but he was a supporter of political reform. The authorities wanted a written apology which he refused to sign. Al-Farhan was released on Saturday. He told …
As much as we all bitch and moan about the nanny state and the intrusion into our private lives that we have in blighty, at least we are allowed to moan.....
Saudi arabia is a 15th century country getting fat of 21st century oil prices. Once that has gone, nobody will go near there again.
before we begin to see this sort of thing here?
Given gov.uk's reticence/resistance to investigating the Phorm/BT 'tests', and the apprent arise of new censorship, the rest of the 'dissenting masses' must be in their sights.
As someone commented on the censorship (extreme porn) issue;
"When did I fall asleep and wake up in China?"
In a couple of years, mate!
This is EXACTLY the scenario we can expect in the UK if they can hold "suspects" for more than a few days without charging them. They're already up to 30 days and still trying to push for 42.
There are two procedures we can introduce to control this behaviour. First, it is foolish to deny that there are occasions when we will have to detain suspects indefinitely for a variety of reasons, some of which we can't even foresee. However, should that EVER be the case, we must not let politicians, police or judges be empowered to make decisions which restrict the liberty of the citizen without due process. Such powers should only be exercised by We The People in the form of a duly sworn Jury.
Second, when it emerges, as it did in the this case, that no charges are to be laid, the suspect must be compensated for loss and injury and the State must be penalised. Where appropriate, decision makers should be prosecuted or at least fired and the State should pay a substantial fine (£1million plus) in the form of a charitable donation to one of the recognised organisations (Liberty, ACLU etc) who make it their business to defend victims in this situation.
What this would achieve is a strong disincentive for the State to practice licensed terrorism against its own citizens while still permitting unrestricted detention when a Jury has been properly convinced that it genuinely is necessary.
No mate, it's a family firm, wholly owned by the Sauds, and all the citizens are mere employees. Their "legal" system (they don't have "justice") is exactly what the boss decrees it to be, and their laws are the rules the boss makes up.
And like all tough choices, we don't HAVE to buy their oil, but we're scared of the consequences.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
