Slashdot Mirror
Alleged British Hacker Fears Guantanamo
Magnifico writes "The BBC is reporting that Gary McKinnon, a British man accused of breaking into the U.S. government computer networks, could end up at Guantanamo Bay. His lawyer is fighting his extradition to the United States arguing, 'The US Government wants to extract some kind of species of administrative revenge because he exposed their security systems as weak and helpless as they were.'"
"'The US Government wants to extract some kind of species of administrative revenge because he exposed their security systems as weak and helpless as they were.'"
How would he like it if someone broke into his flat and snooped through all of his drawers? Oh. I'm sure he'd thank the burglar for exposing his security weaknesses for him, right? Just doing a service?
(Sorry, if you do a crime, don't whine about the time.)
And am not exactly a fan of the Us Government, but you've got to be a bit of an idiot to 'test weaknesses'/hack the Us government's property. they're not gonna take it lying down are they?
Seems like if you're shipped there, you're automatically guilty, and if you're automatically guilty, you have to stay there until you stop being guilty. Is this one of those cases using the new extradition system, whereby the US doesn't have to show any evidence to the UK - it just has to say "Hand him over", and he gets sent?
Still, just label him a terrorist, even though he claims he's nothing more than a script kiddie, and then people aren't allowed to say no.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I'm excited for this well balanced and thought out discussion that is sure to follow!
That's more than most of the prisoners at Guantanamo get.
"Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
He will be held indefinitely at Area 51 for attempting to expose the grand UFO conspiracy. He will also be forced to work on the alien's computers which make Oblivion look like Pong.
After reading the article, I think he's more likely to end up at Area 51.
Uh... OK. He should plead insanity.
The owls are not what they seem
After watching this on the bbc news, a few points stick out:
1) The US can request extradition, but US residents are protected by the constitution
2) The damage to the computers seems exaggerated.
3) He assumed he would be tried under UK law, thus worse case, 2 years behind bars.
If anyone wants to expand on the points above, I'd appreciated it.
Guantanamo is famous for tortures towards the prisoners. One thing is losing your freedom because you committed a crime. But towards an administrative crime (hacking), is it even logical that you get sent to one of the worst prisons in the world?
Let's not forget about the Iraqi soldiers tortured and humilliated.
This guy was a hacker, not some Jihadist killing people or flying planes into buildings. Throw him in a regular prison and move on.
http://religiousfreaks.com/is that his actions are said to have caused $5000 of damage to each PC he connected to, which, coincidentally, is the threshold at which he can be sentenced to a year in prison, which, coincidentally, is the threshold at which he can be extradited.
The US government is gaming the system to get its hands on this guy. That's why it's news.
Funny thing is, I live a half mile from the base he is said to have "disabled" and this is the first I've heard of this story.
Us Brits consider the idea of being extradited to the USA's rape prisons, Gitmo or no Gitmo, to be about on a level as you Yanks regard being extradited to an Iranian prison.
Isn't there something about "cruel and unusual punishment" in your constitution? And the sad thing is that this story is likely to get you guys making rape jokes instead of realising how shitty your country has become. You were once a great nation and you are throwing it all away.
And no, I have no sympathy for this stupid script kiddy kook. But, as Dostoyevsky once wrote, "the degree of civilisation in a society can be judged by entering its prisons".
That this is he lawyer talking. His lawyer is going to say whatever it takes to keep him there.
Trust me, Guantanimo is not where they send Brittish computer hackers.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You commit a crime, you get punished. He may end up in a US prison (which seems common-sense, since f I commited a fairly major crime in the UK, I'd expect to be in prison there, not here) , but I have my doubts they would send him to Guantanamo, especially since the US did not hint at it.... This revenge stuff is bs. True, he exposed a lot of vunlerability, but if they don't punish him hard, many more will try thinking they can get away with a slap on the wrist. This is just politics warped in the opposite direction. There have been times when people against the Patriot act and other Bush decisions have seemed as bad if not more obnoxious and ignorant then some of the hard-core Bush followers. I don't mean to troll, but it sounds like this article is written by someone wrapped up in the anti-Bush attitude. Balance is hard to find. It's much easier to just choose a side and let them give you a bias then to continue to think on your own, joining a side momentarily when you agree.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
How do you cause five thousand dollars in damages without taking a chainsaw to the boxxen? Is the DoD buying from Alienware now?
The current administration has shown that it is more than willing to ignore people's civil rights. What they're doing in Cuba is precisely the same as the Nazis did. They put people in foreign countries where German law didn't apply. American law doesn't protect the prisoners in Cuba. We aren't exterminating the prisoners so it's not nearly as bad but it is still bad. George Bush should be impeached.
Anyway, there is good reason to believe that this prisoner will be mistreated if extradited. If I were the judge, I wouldn't extradite him without a written guarantee that he would be kept in the US where he would be protected by US law.
This guy was a hacker, not some Jihadist killing people or flying planes into buildings. Throw him in a regular prison and move on.
The point of the article is that he is trying to fight extradition to the US because he fears that he won't be "thrown into a regular prison". The US is saying that they don't have any plans to do anything other than that. Though obviously the crux of the issue is whether there is a high enough probability that the US will go ahead and throw him in Guantanomo anyway. Your comment only makes sense if the US said that he was definitely going there. He's using the threat of going there as a way of avoiding the extradition.
I guess he should have thought about where he would end up before he decided to hack into these systems.
He can offer free hacking classes to the other inmates as a way to pass time and help educate the poor underprivileged islamic terrorists currently residing there so they can go on to live a more 'productive' life after their release.. unless the aliens get him first.. ;)
This seems like a straightforward extradition. He is not an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield. As such, there is next to no reason to think you'll see him in Cuba.
If they wanted him down in Gitmo they would grab him in the middle of the night and fly him there. They would not go through the normal legal system for civilians.
His lawyer should know this. He is only trying to get people who dislike holding enemy combatants in Gitmo on his side for something completely unrelated. Well played, but no one should buy the schtick.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Gary, to use an old, American saying I'd recommend "getting the fuck out of Dodge" before it's too late. You'd probably be safe in France.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
As the US doesn't always let Britain extradite criminals, Britain should not let this guy leave the UK.
Plus if they cannot guarantee a fair trial then he should never leave the UK.
Police and Secret Service never found the culprit. However, to most, it is obvious that they are not really trying.
20 years after (i.e. now), one TV and radio station is doing a retrospective of the events back then. And, lo and behold, "new" witnesses crawl out of the woodwork, testifying on air how they saw the suspect the day before one of the bombings, near the place of attack, in a car full of appropriate equipment. And testifying also how they were pressured by police and secret service into silence.
Government and police act scandalized and feign to be interested in the testimony. They even set up an e-mail address to which the public may submit other testimonies, if there are.
Predictably, the email address gets hax0red.
And now suddenly, police and secret service are all up in arms, and want to find the culprit. Non, not the bomber. The hax0r who had the gall to humiliate the police and secret service by typing in the obvious password for that account, and succeed! Major ISPs were raided. They took that new investigation much more seriously than the investigation into the bombings 20 years ago.
A couple of weeks later, some boy-scouts and ex-boyscouts took it upon themselves to moon their boyscout chieftain (... who also happens to be an investigator of the Luxembourgish spying agency ...). You can't imagine the flurry of activity that followed that heinous threat against national security!
Conclusion: terrorize the country during an entire year with your bombs => walk free!
moon an spy-service agent => go to jail!
...And according to Gonzalez, Rush, and the folks at Fox News, Gitmo is Club Med with anchor fence.
I have been to London, where I enjoyed the five or six minutes of sunshine each morning before rolling right into the remaining daylight hours of grey skies, grey ground, and grey air, begging and hoping for merciful sunset so you could see some color from the electric lights.
Shouldn't he be grateful?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Sounds like his lawyer is just trying to get the public and politicians on his side before the trial. There are only vague references in the article that he could be possibly, maybe sent to Guantanamo. If the US authorities have given their word in public in a foreign country that he will not be sent there, I think it would be a PR disaster to go back on it.
U.S Gov: "We want to extradite this guy and try him for hacking our computers."
Sleazy Lawyer: "They have a grudge against my client and want to hold him indefinately."
USG: "We want to try him for the crimes he committed."
SL: "They want to put him Gitmo forever without a trail!"
USG: "Johnnie Cochran called. He wants his defense stragety back."
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If he went there, he is unlikely to be bent over a table because of all the security.
Send him to Rikers and lets see how long he stays anal-retentive.
Sorry, I have to call bullshit on that one.
Unless you call three squares a day and 5 prayer breaks torture.
Sorry, but Amnesty International disagrees with you. OK, maybe I exaggerated, Guantanamo isn't one of the worst prisons in the world. It's one of the worst AMERICAN prisons in the world. According to Amnesty Intl, "Guantánamo Bay has become a symbol of injustice and abuse in the US administration's 'war on terror'. It must be closed down".
There, happy now?
Guantanamo Bay was called into being to exploit a juridical loophole in order to hold people without accusation, without legal representation, and without trial for as long as the authorities need to either build a case against them or to clear them. The reason this was done was to get at people considered to be the equivalent of enemy combatants but without a state that you could hold responsible, without a "home front" which would moderate their actions, and which on balance were considered potentially far too dangerous to let walk around free. In other words: for real terrorists who threaten real lives. Not for teens who make a hobby of breaking into poorly protected computers.
What we see now is that laws are stretched a bit to mark anyone from overseas who breaks into a defense computer as a "terrorist" and hence eligible for "terrorist" treatment. Which includes e.g. a lack of legal representation and a 20 year prison sentence (if he's lucky) or a 60 year one if he's unlucky. Which in this case is of course totally out of proportion.
What worries me most is the cries of "he commited a crime and thence should not whine about the time". Nice copy, but more than a bit barbaric when you come to think of it. Punishment should be proportionate to the offense, and people's rights (e.g. to legal counsel and reasonable sentences) should not be set aside simply because the administration currently in power happens to feel like it.
If we seriously consider 20 years of prison as just punishment for the electronic equivalent of breaking and entering on federal property, then why not adopt "Islamic" laws such as cutting of hands for petty theft and stoning for adultery? Those laws were made in and for a medieval society. Don't tell me that the US of A is becoming the appropriate setting for that kind of law.
Amnesty International has an anti-US slant in many cases:
"The unlawful detention of "enemy combatants" ": We follow the requirements of treaties regulating POWs, etc. These enemy combatants didn't follow the rules of war - hence no protection. Even the UN isn't complaining!
"Many of these detainees allege they have been subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In desperation, some detainees have attempted suicide. Others have gone on prolonged hunger strikes, being kept alive only through painful force feeding measures."
People can allege anything. I can allege North Korea is using microwaves beamed from a satellite to control my thoughts - that doesn't make it true. People attempt suicide for many reasons, including guilt. And if we didn't force feed people, we'd be accused of letting them starve to death.
Anything we do, or don't do, will get criticized, unless we let them all go and wait for another terrorist attack.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
If the US authorities have given their word in public in a foreign country that he will not be sent there, I think it would be a PR disaster to go back on it.
Oh, like the current administration gives a rat's ass about PR, except where they risk offending the bible-thumping red-staters who keep voting them into office.
Does it bother anyone else that the US said:
Mark Summers, representing the US government, said there was no precedent to suggest the US would breach its promises, and the court should take on "faith" the undertaking.
but I don't see anywhere where they 'promise' to try him in federal court - they have given him 'assurances' but no 'guarantee'. Sorry, as soon as somebody says "take my word for it but I won't write it down", you know damb well they have no intention of keeping their precious word.
I think they aren't reporting that he could end up there, just that his lawyer says he could end up there - a small but important difference.
The lawyer is trying legal wrangling to help his client avoid extradition, and it may be something that could never happen but if there is no law preventing it (or more likely a giant fuzzy grey area) the it's probably just a tactic to stall / avoid the extradition.
Regardless of how you believe the system does work, its how it could work that should be feared. Although, I agree, he won't end up there mostly because it is a bit too high of a profile case now, but he could, and that should never be a possibility. I hope he does get sent back here eventually for criminal proceedings but I do hope we can REALLY restrict this Guantanamo Bay crap, or remove it entirely. It has NO place in a fair and legal justice system and it is apparent it can easily be abused for purposes other than "terrorism" in the future.
Just like the people in Guantanamo, more than 80% of whom were, according to the State Department, handed over by bounty hunters with no US-confirmed intelligence of what they were doing or where they were doing it. Of the other 15%, only one, the American, has been found to be "an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield". Some were teenagers who were released after a mere two and a half years of illegal imprisonment - which I'm SURE you would have fully supported if it had been you - and some of the others have turned out to have been rounded up because they happened to be standing near someone else who was being arrested. At least one prisoner was "captured" because the person who arrested him thought he had suspicious trousers.
They would not go through the normal legal system for civilians.
They probably would for someone living in the UK. To do otherwise would be to lose UK troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as causing the fall of the only European government which is stil prepared to ignore the will of its own people to support the US's oil-grab.
He is only trying to get people who dislike holding enemy combatants in Gitmo on his side for something completely unrelated.
Well, it's a simple fact that the US has thrown hundreds of people into jail in Guantanamo for no reason at all, so why exactly would we believe that they won't throw this guy in there too? The rule of law has been suspended in the US, the self-appointed military nut-cases and oil-barons that are running the country can basically do anything they like and are happily killing hundreds of people every week simply in order to support their share-prices. Do you really think they'd not lock this guy up for revealing that they're not even good at the job they're pretending to do?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The US could easily just sign a guarentee that he would get a trial - so far they have refused. They have called the guy a terrorist. I can add one and one and I think he has a perfectly valid reason to think he would be on the one way trip to Cuba. If I were the british judge, I wouldn't hand him over unless the US agreed to give him a trial.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
At Guantanamo, the prisoners don't have any rights to a trial or access to the American Justice system -- until the US Supreme Court decides that it is not Constitutional for the Executive branch to accuse, convict and execute the sentence on a person with no trial. I figure he'd be there for about 20 years with no trial until this Supreme Court wakes up.
What he ought to fear is an overseas detention compound as this is where one British releasee suffered torture, not at Gitmo.
While I agree this is a ploy by his lawyer to try this case in the Court of Public Opinion (at least in England where Guantanamo is not very popular), the US apparently doesn't torture prisoners there. They torture them elsewhere because Guantanamo is under too much public scrutiny
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
FTA:
"The US said Mr McKinnon had assurances he would be tried in a federal court."
"But defence lawyers said his human rights could be breached if he was sent to the US."
And the reason for their thinking: "Defence lawyer Edmund Lawson said the US Embassy in London had provided an 'unsigned and anonymous' diplomatic note and said Mr McKinnon was still 'vulnerable' to such an order."
Given the fact that this guy is a national security threat, he should be lucky to get tried in court and NOT be going straight to Guantanamo. What he thinks he did is irrelevant. How does he know someone wasn't piggybacking on him? How do we know that he didn't give information to anyone else? I agree that Guantanamo might be a bit extreme if the guy had hacked in and defaced the IRS site or a state information portal. But the second you get into military (TFA says he hacked into Naval weapon station Earle) all bets are off. If he were to get off easy the message will be sent to our enemy: "Hack all you want and if you're caught just claim you were showing vulnerabilities and looking for UFO information".
His lawyers would do well to just try to get in writing that he'll get a court trial - they're not going to stop him from being sent to the US.
If Gary's name was Muhammad, I wonder how that would change things. Even if he was just a nice suburban kid with no connections and no intentions to do anyone any real harm, a couple of good media pieces and you'd have instant enemy of the state. There is no responsible way to handle the power to convict without trial.
Sometimes its good to be a Mc.
"If they wanted him down in Gitmo they would grab him in the middle of the night and fly him there"
Uh-huh. He lives in Wood Green. I wouldn't recommend letting anyone who isn't from there actually go into Wood Green in the middle of the night. They'd all die before they got to his front door.
Horrible place.
Sadly, going to Gitmo would probably be an improvement, but I can't support this extradition until he's guaranteed a fair trial in the US - which at the present time he hasn't.
Why doesn't he just fly to New York and turn himself in?
The purpose of Gitmo is to keep those prisoners in a place where they are not actually in the US and thus they can be deprived of many of their Constitutional rights (an argument I don't agree with, by the way, your rights to be protected from our government do not diminish at our borders).
So, if he were just to fly into the US, he would be on US soil, and none of these shenanigans apply. And there's no legal method for extraditing him off of US soil.
The most he would have to fear is federal (pound-me-in-the-ass) prison. And from the article, i sounds like he deserves it.
It also sounds like he has a very high opinion of himself, making himself out to be some kind of nemesis to the US government. This guy appears to have huge delusions of grandeur.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
"species of administrative revenge"
At long last, Donald Rumsfeld's existence is finally and adequately explained.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
"I guess he should have thought about where he would end up before he decided to hack into these systems."
Ass.
You don't need to know much, only that the current administration has zero respect for the law or the inalienable rights accorded to all Men. As said in this one document that GW seems to be using as toilet paper.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
We follow the requirements of treaties regulating POWs, etc. These enemy combatants didn't follow the rules of war - hence no protection. Even the UN isn't complaining!
How about not having a tactical military force able to engage following the rules of war? How about the fact that people imprisoned, were so, before a formal war was declared? Unless you count 9/11 an act of war against 'anyone not on our side'. How did prisoners in Iraq not follow the rules of war? Stooping down to a brutal level is not a good thing for a civilized nation to do. If anything, the US should, by their actions, show the world how a prisoner should be treated.
People can allege anything. I can allege North Korea is using microwaves beamed from a satellite to control my thoughts - that doesn't make it true. People attempt suicide for many reasons, including guilt. And if we didn't force feed people, we'd be accused of letting them starve to death.
That's what court of laws are for. To determine if any allegations are true and to punish accordingly. If the allegations are baseless, it will be thrown out of the court. How many prisonors in guantanamo have been through a proper trial before sentenced there? But dismissing this right because "People can allege anything" is downright scary...
Oh and about terrorist acts: Every one in the world condemns them, even the trolls you'll see posting anti-US bullshit. But, when engaging in a war, it's funny that you believe you'll have no victims. I propose you rethink why you are at war in the first place.
- Many of the alleged terrorists in Guantanamo were picked up in the bounty program in Pakistan
- One satirist from Pakistan was recently released and has interviewed repeatedly on conditions that are, without a doubt, torture
- The "tribulnals" to determine whether or not someone belonged there were farcical kangaroo courts, with defendants unable to view evidence against them or cross examine alleged eye witnesses because those documents were "classified"
Make no mistake, Guantanamo is another stain on America's conscience, and makes the phrase "Land of the Free" ironic at best.You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
I have a great deal for you, slashdot editors : if you send me money, you could end up owning a very large and important bridge.
ASPARAGUS!!" Gross. They are being tortured there.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
...to close him in a room with a PC and an assembler and force him to write a Windows-compatible operating system from scratch. Thus society will get a free open source alternative to Windows, and he is going to be happy for the rest of his life.
The UN has been complaining from Day 1 & is still calling for the shutdown of the Guantanamo prison camp.
http://www.google.com/search?q=UN+bush+guantanamo
To top it off, your logic is somewhat circular: enemy combatants have no rights to due process, they allege horrible treatement, but since they're enemy combatants we expect them to make such allegations.
You notice how your logic all hinges on the assumption that these guys are are 'enemy combatants' aka terrorists? A title, which by definition, prevents that accusation from being examined.
Did you know that Amnesty International also has an anti-N. Korea slant and an anti-China slant and an anti-Iran slant? Actually, they're slanted against anyone they criticize.My dad always said there's three ways to do things: The right way, the wrong way and the Army way. Now when you say that, you have to count down from three fingers to 1. I'll let you guess which finger is still standing by the time you get to the "Army way".
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Read this, and shut your idiot mouth.
t ion
I hate how morons like you can ruin these discussions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Conven
You've made your bigotry quite clear with your unapologetic ignorance and your IMO's, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take your post somewhat seriously for comment.
They waged war against our country and are being kept alive only out of the restraint of the American government. [...] These aren't innocent bystanders. They're warriors commited to killing Americans.
Because someone told you they did? Do you realize that the vast majority of the detainees there weren't even captured by U.S. forces, but rather by bounty hunters? The America you seem so intent on defending was founded upon, among other things, the ideas that one is innocent until proven guilty, and that all people are created equal. Many prisoners held at Guantanamo are detained indefinitely without charge or conviction. By conveniently choosing to afford rights only to your own citizens, you are nullifying the validity of your own ideology.
These are non-uniformed combatants (to whom the Genevea convention most certainly does NOT apply). They could (and should IMO) be drug out and shot at a moment's notice, quite legally.
While the Bush administration has sneakily avoided classifying the prisoners as POW to get around the Geneva convention (which no other government in the world has supported, mind you), the U.S. has in the past signed other international treaties that clearly ban what they are doing with Guantanamo. So no, it wouldn't be legal, not by a longshot.
If you want to know torture, examine a Muslim prison where fingers, hands, eyes, tongues are removed. Feeding is optional. Ever seen a "stoning" (and no, I don't mean you and and your friends with a bong)? A beheading?
Where are these Muslim prisons? Are you just making this up? Provide some facts, we don't want to hear your sensationalist bullshit.
Amnesty International called the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp the "gulag of our times", and the U.N. has called it a "human rights scandal". I won't comment on how bad it is relative to other prisons worldwide, but the existence of 'worse' prisons doesn't somehow justify the existence of Guantanamo Bay's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
(1) He is not a member of Al Qaeda.
(2) He has never been a member of Al Qaeda.
(3) He has not provided material support to Al Qaeda.
(4) He was not captured on a battlefield.
(5) He has not committed an act of war against the United States.
(**6**) HE IS NOT AN ILLEGAL COMBATANT (an individual who has engaged in acts of war against the United States and violated the laws of war).
To be held in Guantanamo, an individual MUST be an illegal combatant (violated the laws of war). There is no chance McKinnon falls under this category.
Furthermore, the US government has explicitly stipulated that he will be tried under civilian courts.
McKinnon's lawyers are simply doing their job and advancing any claim against extradition they can think of, but the argument is completely invalid.
I would add one more thing to this - it probably is the worst prison in the US (well, under US control, anyway). And it should be - these are the worst scumbags. They make the prison as bad as it is - why is the alledged torturing happening? Do you think we are trying to get intel from these people that have been in prison for a few years?
The "torture" is the measured reaction by the guards to the feeces flinging inmates. Who, yes, should be shot. (By the way, no one really believes in trials in times of war. How many Iraqis get a trial before return fire kills them? The legal issues are different - but they are still there, and they are still followed)
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Statement 2:
Ever heard something about "not guilty unless proven guilty"? If there's no trial, then in my opinion it follows immediately that he didn't commit the crime (or at least, that he cannot be charged for it).
Georg
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about man!? Can't you recognize it when you see it? It's called S-T-U-P-I-D-I-T-Y.
Those that equate flushing down a Koran with torture have no freakin' idea what the hell torture is all about.
These are folks who would have killed our soldiers and we're treating them so well - like someone once said, a PoW is someone who tries to kill you and fails, and asks you to treat him fairly in turn.
I think we're being stupid - screw Gitmo, just shoot each of these bastards on sight. Shoot on sight and be done with it. There, no prison, no complaints. Just a lot of dead bastards.
So, why would a British citizen be held there. He wasn't caught in Iraq or Afghanistan as an enemy combatant. It's just an attempt to pull at the heart strings of the British public to cause an outcry over his extridition. I guess you can't blame him for trying though.
Damn right! Those bastards should have carpet bombed the States.
Not entirely. As far as the (some innocent, some not) people from Afghanistan, Iraq, wherever... well, I feel bad for them, but I also feel bad for all the kids starving in China, or dying of AIDS in Africa, or... well, you get the picture.
But criminal though he may be, and terrorist, probably... Jose Padilla is an American citizen. The fact that it took three years of legal wrangling to force the government to charge him with a crime is everything the constitution was written to prevent.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Hear, hear! Wish I had mod points.
Carthago delenda est!
Not "make you" just "look" weak and vulnerable, but EXPOSE you as weak and vulnerable. They are merely fighting the truth ;)
"The unlawful detention of "enemy combatants" ": We follow the requirements of treaties regulating POWs, etc. These enemy combatants didn't follow the rules of war - hence no protection.
How do you know that? What assurances do we have that these men are combatants of any sort? None! If these men are in fact combatants, why have 167 of them been sent home? If everything in guantanamo is hunky dory, why won't the US let the UN talk to the prisoners? Even China didn't refuse that!
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
your words are wasted on that moron
and your sig have caused me some serious cognitive dissonance.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
If I faced the prospect of being deported to a concentration camp where I'd be ass-fucked for an indeterminate time as the sex slave of frustrated, high-on-testosterone and militarism American GIs who just won't come out of the closet...
Amnesty International has an anti-US slant
Yeah, they hate Freedom!
OR, Amnesty International has an anti-'unjust detention' slant, and the U.S. happens to have fallen in the 'bad guys' camp on this issue. That would of course mean that U.S. isn't magically perfect and incapable of wrong-doing, which is obviously an insane position to take. Obviously, anyone who criticises the U.S. actions has an irrational bias!
if we didn't force feed people, we'd be accused of letting them starve to death.
One word: Gandhi .
You can't take the sky from me...
It's Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan where most of the "unlawful combatants" were harvested.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
"Amnesty International called the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp the "gulag of our times""
This line showed that Amnesty International has no credibility at all, and is run by "Hate America First" political extremists. Most of the countries in the world have far worse prisons than Guantanamo. Ironically, the prisons in the rest of Cuba are worse. Also, unlike the gulags, those put there were caught red-handed committing atrocities.
AI might be right if you only consider prisons in southern Cuba. Perhaps with this limited set, Camp X ray is the gulag of our times. It is nothing compared to prisons outside of the area.
You have to be a very bad person to end up there. There are consequences for bad actions.
the content of your message and your sig are making my head hurt. I didn't think it was possible to be worse than this pairing.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Has it ever come to your mind that "the rules of war" are made up by the powerful nations? Take the example of the international criminal court: The USA will not ratify the international criminal court unless it is made sure that US soldiers cannot be tried for war crimes. Furthermore, the USA simply stated that everybody arrested in Guantanamo is exempted from the Geneva conventions. Why? Well, because.
While a little bit of collateral damage (i.e., a few hundred dead civilians) is perfectly acceptable when a missile misses its target, its against "the rules of war" to blow yourself up in midst a crowd of civilians. Certain countries are not allowed to own atomic weapons. Which countries define who's allowed to? Well, the countries that already own atomic weapons.
Georg
He deserves whatever he gets.. No sympathy for a criminal.
The whole premise of this story is based on a lawyers statement. One that is obviously designed to create the largest amount of publicity for his client. I applaud the lawyer as he is doing what he was hired to do. I laugh at those who consider the lawyers statement to have any basis in fact.
The story even states that the man is to be tried in a US Federal court. Which means no Military tribunal, thus no Gitmo.
The whole Gitmo question has to do with the new nature of the conflict that the US and the western world is involved in. The old rules not only do not apply, they can be used against the west.
I am not proposing that Gitmo is the right choice and I 100% do NOT condone torture. I am simply stating that gitmo is a poor first attempt at solving a new problem. What does one do with captives from an undeclared war that does not have a single nationality to focus on?
If the US was any other country in the world we would use the absolute rules of war and what is the allowable punishment for spies? Which is what most terrorists would be classified under the rules of war.
The US and the West have a long way to go before an acceptable solution is found. I would be interested in hearing constructive ideas on what that solution might be.
that is a disgusting comment
If we're treating them so well, and everything's all nice and legal and on the up-and-up, why not imprison them on American soil?
And as someone else pointed out, many of these detainees were turned in by bounty hunters who got paid by the head. I doubt there was a lot of discriminating intelligence involved in that rounding-up process.
Bush is a cylon.
If they are not POWs, then they are protected persons under the fourth geneva convention and if they're breaking the law (by murdering, etc.) then they are to be tried by the occupied country, and are given numerous protections from the occupied power: namely, the occupied power cannot transfer them out of the occupied country.
There is no legal backing or precedent for treating people as this mysterious "enemy combatant" category, a classification that affords people neither the protection of the 4th geneva convention nor the protections of POW status.
-bugg
Actually I think pretty much everyone agrees that giving them due process in an actual hearing with the ability to enter evidence, review the evidence against them (currently almost all of the "reviews" include secret evidence that cannot be refuted by the accused because they don't know what it is the government is even alleging) and in general be afforded the actual protections outlined for POWs or enemy soldiers under the Geneva conventions WOULD be acceptable. The Geneva conventions define enemy soldiers, POWs and civilian criminals, the "unlawful combatant" term is one which was invented by the US government to do an end-run around the convention and essentially process prisoners however they choose. Lest you forget the US agreed to the Geneva conventions, including the intent that they covered all forms of prisoners captured in wartime. Following the conventions would be acceptable to all.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
"Certain countries are not allowed to own atomic weapons. Which countries define who's allowed to? Well, the countries that already own atomic weapons."
genius... the person actually is jealous of the possession of an atomic weapon
This guy was on the news a few days ago. He is not a hacker, he infact clearly corrected anyone who called him a hacker. He was a script kiddy, he got in over his head and he knew it. He got caught and openly admitted everything, he told them what programs he downloaded to use and exactly how he did it (he basicly port sniffed the hell out of the system and then kept trying default passwords and blank passwords untill he found something intresting).
The guy is afraid the US wants to make an example of him. He's clearly pointed out under the current "anti terror" laws, he could be arrested and held without trial untill they decide to let him go. Now maybe it's just me here, but I'm also afraid of these anti terror laws. After all he commited the crime on UK soil, he has hence broken the British laws, so he should be put on trial here. Where the crime was commited and where he believes he will get a fair trial.
I like muppets.
I'm American, and your post may get jokes like that from some, but not from me. You're dead on. It reminds me of when I was in a taxi in Dominica going from the airport to town. The roads weren't very good and the car had a cracked windshield. The driver made a comment about how there wasn't as much civilization as in America. I responded, "Civilization isn't about roads and cars. It's about how people behave."
If only this Administration understood that.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
And anyway, why exactly should anyone be sent to a gulag out of anyone's oversight? Why should a British hacker be sent there? If he's a criminal, he should be put to trial, not lynched in the true American Way.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
"Dude", what the fuck are you talking about? You have invented some kind of amazing new technology that can identify a terrorist visually? You can't just shoot people that have been accused (probably due to political reasons) of something. You have to prove it using an open system. What if (surprise surprise) your administration has been lying to you (WMD's?), and most of those people in Guantanamo are just poor schmoes who happened to be in Afghanistan, and didn't like the US steamroller rolling right over them.
They might not. I grant you. They might all be highly dangerous terrorists who have a pile of nukes hidden somewhere, and thus can't be let out. But if that's the case, charge them, convict them (fairly), and play the game by the rules.
Get your own free personal location tracker
This might get long winded, but it's on a particular subject that I find to be rather serious, so please, bear with me.
Amnesty International does not have an anti-US slant. You are mistaking their opposition towards detaining masses of people without due process and torturing them to get information from them as bias against the United States. The unprovoked abuse of prisoners is not an accusation by Amnesty International, but rather, by the FBI, and most would consider this the tip of the iceberg, as the government is in the business of media-friendly-spin. Do a google search, it's fairly well known... how it is that people get this idea in their heads that life is peachy keen at a concentration camp, I'll never know. Oh, and of course they are fed and given semi-clean quarters; anything less would be a giant target painted on the United States and its military for international ridicule, and as we're on thin ice enough as it is, they are at least smart enough not to be so brashly cruel. Starvation, beatings, sleep-deprivation, and other torture techniques can be blamed on a myriad of inter-prisoner problems. As long as you sweep the cells and wash the dishes, you can stave off accusations of abuse for years.
Furthermore, we have broken the rules of warfare outright by keeping so many "enemy combatants" imprisoned without allowing them any access to the outside world, let alone any rights of any kind... but as we already told the U.N. it has not power over us, there is no one to bring us to trial. As the link between Iraq and bin Laden has already been disproved, again and again, one does wonder how exactly an Iraqi soldier has broken the rules of war, mmm? By fighting against us? Not only that, but holding soldiers from the old Taliban regime is a rather grand stretch unless, by due process of law, you can prove they had ties to bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Otherwise, they were doing their job as soldiers.
In fact, the term "enemy combatant" was invented to weasel out of calling our opponents "soldiers", thus giving the military the barest sliver of justification for breaking the rules of warfare. If they were legally defined as "soldiers", they could not be held without due process, legal counsel, or access to the outside world, including friends and family. Abuse would be out of the fucking question, let alone torture.
I would say the greatest obstacle towards understanding the reality of the situation for so many of my fellow Americans is our innately violent tempers. I remember a majority of the people I spoke to for weeks after 9/11 speaking about simply bombing or nuking the country with the responsible group out of existence, not joking in the slightest. I often wonder how many people will ever realize how dark and evil such a thought is?
Anyway, my opposition does not mainly come from any objection towards violence, far from it: violence is simply another form of interaction between entities, and is quite necessary to make sure the bloodthirsty don't have their way with the world. My opposition comes from the extremely dishonorable behavior exhibited by the military by slithering out of the rules of the Geneva Convention by using the term "enemy combatant", and for the light-heartedness with which we invaded Iraq, and our insulting behavior towards the UN. Honor is a serious thing, whether or not people push past their misconceptions of it. As if all of that weren't enough, I can't help but feel that the desensitization of the American public through television and such hasn't created apathy, but rather, a willingness to accept brutality as a way of life rather than working towards something better. I hear it echoed every time someone tells me "The only reason you can criticize your government is because we live in a civilized society, why don't you try that in (insert random violent government/country)." Idiots. Where do they think this society came from? Just by luck, just by our birth on this land? We live in this society because we made it as best
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
It's one of the worst AMERICAN prisons in the world. According to Amnesty Intl, "Guantánamo Bay has become a symbol of injustice and abuse in the US administration's 'war on terror'. It must be closed down"
This is just a statement of political opinion and does not address prison conditions, which are quite good. The great majority of American disagree with this, as does the Supreme Court. AA doesn't speak to the conditions at Gitmo, because they are quite good. The symbolism of Gitmo is in their mind only. The people down there are given due process through a military tribunal. Many of these prisoners have been repatriated only encountered again on the battlefield. Remember that they are enemy combatants, not US citizens. When the war on terror is over and we have Osama on a spit, then they can go home.
an ill wind that blows no good
"One detainee had his head and mouth duct-taped. Another was "short-shackled" to the eye-bolt in the floor of the interrogation room. Detainees were subject to 16-20 hour interrogations plus sleep deprivation and isolation for up to 54 consecutive days. Strip searches were used as an interrogation technique. Detainees would be locked in a refrigerated room known as the "freezer" for extended periods of time. In the course of interrogation, a detainee was told that his family had been captured by the United States and that they were "in danger". Barking, growling, teeth-baring military dogs were used in interrogations."
Not a single thing listed in there is torture.
So, what was your point, apart from the fact that you've had way too much of the kool-aid?
Man, I'm glad someone here had the patience to respond to this kid's ignorrant comments. Those US soldiers do have alot of self-control. I know if it was me there, I'd probably be going berserker.
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
Its strange that this has to go all the way to the top just to go after a pothead script kiddie. Whats wrong with letting the local police force handle this incident?
The imbalance may have something to do with the nature of what he was trying to find rather than the actual damage he has caused. He may have been delusional or under the influence in chasing after UFOs, but what if the thread he was chasing after had something to do with an actual top secret program in the aerospace industry, such as a spy plane in operation with bleading edge technology?
In other words he may have got the attention of Sauron's eye becaue of his behavior pattern. That whatever McKinnon had unknowingly brushed up against was so sensitive that somebody is going to great lengths to protect it.
Four words: "Bleeding Heart Activist Attorneys"
The ramifications are obvious. No need to spell it all out for you, is there?
Your ignorance is stunning and the morals you put up for display despicable. So as long as there are worse prisons in the world Guantanmo is OK? Way to go. Just show me one prison anywhere in Europe where prisoners have to be force fed through their nostrils. As the parent post was pointing out many of the inmates have been sold by bounty hunters for cash. There is no way to know if they deserve to be imprisoned because there was no trial. This goes against every ideal America stands for. The fact that you can not see this bodes ill for the country. Too many Unamericans like you have lost their moral compass and are happy to trash all the principles this country was founded on.
well he was either very good to be able to do what he did or very stupid to get caught,either way maybe the US government should offer him a job,at least he could show them how he did it and then put measures in place to make sure it can not happen again,otherwise the next time they might not be so lucky and it coulod be someone or some group with bad intentions.
Of one side, in their rush to condemn, making shit up.
"electric shocks"
There were no electric shocks. Shut the fuck up if you plan to lie.
"dog maulings"
No, not accurate. Dog MAULING, singular.
Why do idiots like you insist on lying when there are worse examples of abuse that aren't lies, such as
"A male MP guard raping a female detainee."
and
"Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick."
Be accurate, or forfeit your right to comment. Morons like you only make it harder to discuss things like this.
Are you stupid or maybe related to Pres. Bush?
The USofA is criticised for good reason, at least since the end of WWII they have claimed to be the leader of the so called 'Free World'.
And that leadership comes with some obligations like 'Fair Trial'.
The detainees at Gitmo don't get that fair trial but are abused instead.
There are international laws that do allow for special treatment for non-combatant enemies, the US can do so in a regular court.
Just as the US would have expected from other nations only some 20 years ago...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Why dont the US try him in Britain under British laws? He 'll get punished without going to Guadanamo Bay.
Osama must be laughing his ass off at such a spineless attitude.
Well spoken!
And I cry for the people of the once Free World.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
There is a pretty simple explaination for that, as someone accidentily pointed out earlier (in a Chrisitan Science Monitor article about some Chinese which actually ran counter to their point), once detainees reach American soil they are given certain rights which no one in the government wants, namely the right to apply for asylum.
As long as they are on American controlled territory outside of the US, their treatment may be dictated by US law, but once their confinement is over they can be returned to their country of origin without much legal wrangling. If they were being held somewhere within the 50 states, then they would have to be deported, which depending on which country they are legally a citizen of, could give them grounds for aplying for sanctuary, which based on their specific case details, the US government may be legally required to offer them.
The fact that the US is currently holding upwards of 8 cleared detainees at GITMO simply because they would face persecution from their homelands should they be retured there, show that this concern is very real. While they feel for these people and will not send them back home to face punishment for their political or religous beliefs, they also don't want to give them US citizenship.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
You (and most of those arguing with you) don't seem to understand the fundamental problem with Guantanamo isn't whether the prisoners are being tortured. The problem is that people are being thrown in a detainment facility, with no trial, and no access to the outside world. THIS goes against the most basic principles of the United States. But even beyond this, some your statements are absurd.
These are non-uniformed combatants... They waged war against our country...
Um, what? What uniforms should they wear, since we effectively destroyed whatever government they had and plunged them into anarchy? Also, I know the Ministry of Truth makes it difficult, but try to remember that WE waged war on THEM.
You go on to detail how poorly the prisoners behave... that's because they're fucking prisoners! We invaded their country and took them captive, and because they fight back we label them all terrorists? We went into Iraq under the guise of fighting terrorism (well, first it was WMD, then terrorism in general, then tyranny, but who's keeping track?)... it is likely that there were/are terrorists in Iraq (just as in other parts of the middle east, just as in other parts of the world), but we have taken the stance that ANYONE who defends themselves against the U.S. "liberators" is a terrorist. Wake up.
So perhaps a stint at Gitmo is like a mini-vacation. Perhaps they give all the prisoners manicures and Egyptian cotton sheets. The point is that we have summarily classified a group of people to having NO RIGHTS, simply because a few of them pose a threat. Demonize them and call them all enemy combatants or terrorists, and keep believing that your government is guilty of no wrong-doing...
Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1
The way it's presented in the United States is that they are released with the question of whether or not they were combatants presumed already answered in the affirmative and that either they have determined that the political climate has changed enough that they are no longer a threat, or they will be monitored in the wild for the potential to gain useful intelligence.
One thing i haven't seen in the comments is the difference between the Uk and US operation of their extradition treaty. The UK government seems to be happy to go along with the US and extradite people, but the reverse hasn't been true to date. I'm thinking of the suspected IRA members that the UK wanted, but the US wouldn't extradite, as I think the US considered them 'political activists' where the UK considered them to be terrorists.
I suspect a lot of folk here learnt some of their networking skills doing much what this guy did, albeit before it was illegal, and I for one think the massive fines/prison sentences the US metes out are way over the top. I think the worst he could get here is 5 years, more likely to be 2 or 3. So yes this is probably legal shenanningans to try and avoid extradition, but if it was me I know where I'd prefer to be tried.
The above options seem to apply to most people in Guantanamo, seeing how most of them were just farmers and cab drivers snatched by bounty hunters working to maximize their profits.
If they had done anything criminal, they would have had their days in court, long ago.
Bush government is responsible for guaranteeing that they respect the human rights of everyone, they are signators to International Human Rights Treaties, and kidnapping, torturing, and punishing people without due course or trial is not abiding by those treaties.
I dare say that every person on this planet deserves to have a fair trial before they are imprisoned or punished. This is the hallmark of civilization. Anything less is medieval. Torture is outright barbaric and a blatant crime against the treaties. Torture has never produced anything of value, only more enemies.
I hope you realise that your standing on the sidelines knowing absolutely nothing substantial about the case and wishing this man be raped, beaten, tortured and whatever else, in retribution for computer crime, is essentially the same thing as mediaeval mobs cheering a lynching or torturing of someone who has committed a crime. While you are completely ignorant about this man, what he has done, and his situation, you feel qualified to condemn him, and not just to some kind of ordinary punishment, but actually something extremely cruel, inhumane and vicious. You obviously take pleasure in the thought of this being inflicted on him, and I suspect the only thing stopping you from wanting to do it to him yourself is that it would not be socially acceptable. Better to sit back and watch it on reality TV. You are the kind of person who makes others ashamed to be human beings.
"but when did people start taking prisoner's accounts as gospel."
Right around the time they found that George Bush lied and continued to lie about his motivations for going to war in Iraq.
And yes, I'm one of those people (kooky, I know) who think the president of the U.S. should be held to a higher standard.
Also, unlike the gulags, those put there were caught red-handed committing atrocities. [...] You have to be a very bad person to end up there.
As the other poster pointed out, this is not necessarily true. Caught red-handed by whom? Most of the detainees aren't in there as a result of American investigations. It's not a prison for convicted criminals, it's a round-up camp for suspected troublemakers (read: GULAG). If you actually had to be bad to end up there, there would be trials and convictions.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Alleged British hacker? This is outrageous. No person should be punished until they have been proven to be British beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Ironically, the prisons in the rest of Cuba are worse."
How far we (the U.S.) have fallen. It's good enough now so that "at least we're not as bad as Cuba".
When I was growing up, we wanted to be held to a higher standard than anyone. Now you just want to make sure you're we're not the worst.
I think you and your kind will be the undoing of our country.
We lost 3000 lives on 9/11 and abrogated the rights of another 250 million. I'll let you in on a little secret... we're not at war and never were. The fact that a handful of people can make you throw away 225 years of law shows you how weak you are. There will always people who want to destroy us. Always. And some of them will get lucky sometimes. You can't prevent that no matter how many torture prisons we set up.
And you can't act like a facist state to gain freedom. It doesn't work that way.
Furthermore, the USA simply stated that everybody arrested in Guantanamo is exempted from the Geneva conventions. Why? Well, because.
Well, yeah. Because the Geneva conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers. These guys were neither uniformed not soldiers of any government. That is why Geneva does not apply.
While a little bit of collateral damage (i.e., a few hundred dead civilians) is perfectly acceptable when a missile misses its target, its against "the rules of war" to blow yourself up in midst a crowd of civilians.
I think the main difference here is that when you blow yourself up in a crowd of civilians, your target is the civilians . When a US missile goes astray and lands in a neighborhood, it was an accident, and the US apologizes repeatedly for it. I have yet to hear Bin Laden apologize for the accidental civilian deaths on 9-11. That's the difference between collateral damage and plain old targets.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Basic timelines of trials start with investigating a suspect, charging him, asking for extradition if some other jurisdiction has the defendant, holding the trial (in all its phases), coming to a verdict, and finally punishment if there's a guilty verdict. There are possible appeals at every phase starting the moment you're charged on. There are a few stubborn family members who file appeals to clear people who served their full sentence and are dead.
It's just silly to say that he shouldn't be charged if there isn't a trial.
Now being held indefinitely without trial sounds much more like what you do to a POW. They're out of circulation for the duration of the war, period. Since the US government says this is a criminal and not a war matter, the US' highly stringent pre-trial detention rules (you can hold onto somebody a lot longer in Europe) apply.
It's not that far from "military order number one" to "catch twenty-two".
If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime. Besides, I'm sick of installing update after update on the systems in our company just because some hacker has nothing better to do with his life. What about a girlfriend, a hobb, a pet - anything other than "how can I get back at MS and all the people that refuse to adopt LINUX"... If the penalties for hackers are tougher, maybe it will discouraged this disruptive behavior.
What do you think would happen? There is a country that holds people without trial for as long as they like. Any other country than the US would be considered an enemy of the free world BY the US. What do you think the rest of the world thinks about G'Bay? Doh!
If you take a look here:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
You'll see that crime as a absolute number peaked in the early 90's and has been going down. In fact, despite a 20% greater population, the absolute crime numbers are about where they were in the mid 80's. If you scale according to population, crime rates are down to where they were in the early 60's (if not mid 50's).
This is probably due to a lot of factors, one of which is the aging of the population in general.
Nonetheless, serious crime has been on a downward trend in the U.S. for about 15 years.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
and crashing them into buildings, if you can hide in your mom's basement portscanning unpatched Windoze boxen, and still be decared an enemy of the state? This shows the weakness of a) US miltary computer systems, and b) their counter-terrorism techniques. Jeez, 30 years ago the Bulgarians quietly removed a guy like this with a poisoned umbrella...
This guy is blowing smoke. If the USA thought he was the kind of guy that they put in GTMO, do you really think they would extradite him through the British court system? The fact that the the US Justice Department is pursuing this in British courts is a pretty good indication that this is a Judicial proceeding, not a covert intelligence operation. We extradite people through judical proceedings everyday. I'm not aware of a single case where a judicial extradition has resulted in the prisoner going to GTMO.
If the US & UK goverments had decided this guy was going to GTMO, he would not be in the custody of the police and he would not be in court.
Would you actually listen to yourself? You compare "A Few Hundred" civilian deaths to something like spilling a can of coke! Do you actually pause for a second and think about the fact that that is "A few hundred" individuals??? PEOPLE!!!! like you and me, wiped off the face of the planet by a bomb dropped from 10000 feet, the fact that such destructive power can be unleashed from so far away perfectly sums up the current American administrations (and anyone who supports thems) values, "Hey, I didnt see them get ripped apart in front of their families in a shower of flying debris, so i'll just call it a statistic, who could get offended by a statistic?" that distance between pulling the trigger and actually seeing the person die is what allows people to "justify" the war, as they have no connection with the war actually killing people, they see numbers like 30'000 Iraqi Civilians (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) (Thats 30'000 people who were living and breathing 30 seconds before a state funded and trained pilot decided to release a bomb costing more than all those people would probably ever earn in their entire working lives combined, if they survived) think about that, think about where you live and if suddenly 30'000 of those people didnt exist anymore, does 30'000 deaths "balance" out the 3000 from 9/11?? i bet it makes you feel good that "Your country is making them pay!" Just remember that an eye for an eye will leave the world blind
We could (theoretically; given that random ideas can pop into people's heads in much the same way as genetic mutation occurs, this isn't likely to happen) take out all the terrorists.
Hell, we could have entire days or weeks without violent crime. (See above.)
But as long as there is power to be gained by holding the spectre of terr'ists over the heads of the people, the War on Terror will never be over.
The problem with your idea is that it makes sense.
I think he deserves a fair trial, but also a very harsh punishment (from the lawyers statements it seems he admits to guilt). He should be jailed in some way that he can help secure US government computer systems.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Military action, the kind without a formal declaration of war, cannot include suspending the constitutional rights of US citizens. A declaration of war is required for that, and the president didn't get one. There are (or at least were) US citizens being detained and denied their constitutional rights.
Honestly, whether these techincalities can be argued or not, do you really think it's "just" or "right" or "fair" to hold these so-called "enemy combatants" indefinitely without any compensation once exhonerated? Can you really say that they've never made, and will never in the future, make a mistake and incarcerate an innocent person? What exactly would you say to that person once released (if ever)? What if it were you rotting away?
"The definition of combatants are somewhat more involved, but here are the ones that pertain to people who are not members of a government's organized standing military"
Actually, the Third Geneva Convention from which you quote (the full text of it can be found here, by the way) does not seperate combatants between "members of a government's organized standing military" and the rest of what you quoted from Article 4. In fact, you ommited the following:
Anyone arrested and imprisoned in Guantanamo could surely fall in to the category of "members of militias or volunteer corps" if they are a combatant.
Note there's no requirement for people falling in to this category to "carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" to be qualified for Geneva Convention protection.
Why are we trying to extradite a British citizen from Britain?
Britain is our ally. Don't we trust them to take care of their own?
This whole thing seems ridiculous. If we had captured him on a battlefield, that would be another story, but a computer hacker? Let the British government handle it.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Would you actually listen to yourself? You compare "A Few Hundred" civilian deaths to something like spilling a can of coke! Do you actually pause for a second and think about the fact that that is "A few hundred" individuals??? PEOPLE!!!! like you and me, wiped off the face of the planet by a bomb dropped from 10000 feet, the fact that such destructive power can be unleashed from so far away perfectly sums up the current American administrations (and anyone who supports thems) values, "Hey, I didnt see them get ripped apart in front of their families in a shower of flying debris, so i'll just call it a statistic, who could get offended by a statistic?" that distance between pulling the trigger and actually seeing the person die is what allows people to "justify" the war, as they have no connection with the war actually killing people, they see numbers like 30'000 Iraqi Civilians (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) (Thats 30'000 people who were living and breathing 30 seconds before a state funded and trained pilot decided to release a bomb costing more than all those people would probably ever earn in their entire working lives combined, if they survived) think about that, think about where you live and if suddenly 30'000 of those people didnt exist anymore, does 30'000 deaths "balance" out the 3000 from 9/11?? i bet it makes you feel good that "Your country is making them pay!" Just remember that an eye for an eye will leave the world blind
I never said I was happy about civilian deaths, but to compare a stray missile to a suicide bomber is wrong. Trust me, if the suicide bombers had the aresenal of the US Military, none of us would be here talking about it!
But, if you to count numbers, fine. We'll use the number you posted of 30,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Now let's assume these were innocent civilians, killed by US personel, and not suicide bombers (also a civilian), terrorists charging checkpoints or making bombs or whatever. We'll also assume that these deaths were not the result of other means such as suicide bomber or whatever.
Now, compare that 30,000 number to the numbers Unicef reported. Unicef reported 1,000,000 deaths of children... just children, due to Saddam Hussein. Of course, this does not include the numbers of bodies we've found in mass graves (hundreds of thousands of men, women and children).
So, if we take your numbers and Unicef numbers, by my public school math skillz, I figure we saved 970,000 lives. These are people we are talking about. 970,000 people just like you and me. So, yeah! It does make me feel good that my country is doing something about it. Does it make you feel good when a mass grave is discovered filled with the skeletal remains of mothers still holding their toddler age children?
Of course, if you had your way, there would still be children dying from preventable diseases and bullets to the head as opposed to the accidental and rare stray missile.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Many more have been wasted on bigger morons.
Good questions. The foreground war started on 9/11 will end when Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Al Zarqawi are killed or captured. These are the most visible leadership figures. Many possible leadership replacements from Al Qaida's second tier have already been killed. It will not be easy for them to reconstitute. One wonders if the US is trying very hard to assassinate them. My guess is they are, but the big three are very good at hiding. That will empty Gitmo pretty well I think and the the troops pulling back. But the background stuggle of the west against Islamic fascism will continue with no end in sight. It is alive and well in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and much of the muslim world. You won't see large occupation forces in these countries but I think you will see constant conflict. The key for the United States is to not let cells take root within its borders. They seem to be pretty well dispersed at this point. Public suspicion is so high that the islamists would have to win non-Arab converts like Jose Padilla to operate freely within the US. The large Christian majority in the US is a deterent. It is still something to guard against. Uprooting cells from Europe and Canada will be more problematic as the populace and governments are more pacifist.
an ill wind that blows no good
Dear Mr.Bush,
I have some bad news for ya.
We locked up the wrong guy and now we face public exposure.
What shall we do ?
1) Lock the guy up for life ?
2) Lock him up and the press too ?
3) bomb the whole world ?
4) hire the guy to become part of the CIA and say to the press we released the guy ? (of course telling him , if he speaks he faces Mr.Gunn).
Regards,
Q
Send him to Cuba. Give him two sheets of toilet paper, and a steel-wool scrubbie. Which one he uses to wipe his ass, I don't care.
Jesus fucking wept. He God Damn wept because the son-of-a-bitch was looking for UFOs in Area-51. Every god damn disciple wept. This guy is a bloody wanker.
Amnesty International has a dual slant: yes most (it would be naive to believe all) involved are concerned about human rights, in addition AI just like any organisation has people who want to continue to make money (a living or more) continuing to do what they do (it would be naive to believe none).
I don't agree with everything AI says nor disagree with everything, they do fill a function as best as can be expected and there is no reason not to be as sceptical towards them as towards anyone.
What makes be laugh with disdain is the people who are more than willing to quote AI reports on Guantanamo while they were extremely busy not to notice or remember AI reports on Saddam. And please remember that several organisations (such as the international red cross) and governments have access to Guantanamo, the same can't be said of former Iraqi torture-chambers and current North Korean "experimental" deathcamps.
So let us keep a perspective on things right? Those who don't have a tendency to abet and assist international dhimmitude... not much freedom or human rights there.
I'm not saying that the underlying problems causing the Guantanamo situation shouldn't be solved, and since a renegotiation for the sake of clarity of the geneva conventions and international war laws isn't available for lack of international soberness (the UN has enough idiots that they can't even agree on a dictionary definition of terrorism) that leaves the decisions and the debate up to the US unilaterally.
One word: McCain.
(Okay a few more words; McCain has experienced real torture in Vietnamese prison camps, the rest is left as an exercize for the reader...)
Any honest and true American wouldn't care at all how long that pile of shit spends in jail before he is executed (and rest assured, he WILL be executed, hopefully in an extremely slow and painful way). Hell, if it were up to any REAL american, he would have been executed years ago. The guy is a fucking terrorist, and only liberal dumbasses like you care more about him than you do about his victims.
Because the Geneva conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers. These guys were neither uniformed not soldiers of any government.
While this is definitely the correct answer to my provocation, it still doesn't feel right. As I said, the rules are made such that, when everybody follows them, the ones who made them will win.
Not that I'm sympathizing with terrorists, but I guess there's more than one innocent prisoner at Guantanamo Bay... isn't that kafkaesque? "why don't I get a fair trial?" "well, weren't wearing a uniform, were you?"
and the US apologizes repeatedly for it. I have yet to hear Bin Laden apologize for the accidental civilian deaths on 9-11.
Ok, if he apologized, but did it again right after that, would you feel better? And some of the apologies of the US really aren't very plausible. They sacrifice a few dispensable soldiers and pretend that the leaders hadn't known what was going on.
Georg
" These are folks who would have killed our soldiers and we're treating them so well - like someone once said, a PoW is someone who tries to kill you and fails, and asks you to treat him fairly in turn. "
Its funny how some cannot smell further than their own farts!, So if am an iraqi citizon, by what your saying, I should go and kill every american on the planet because they killed our soldiers?, jesus christ man it is because people like you exist that the world is such a fuckedup place. And you have to be blind and deaf not to see that the entire american regime is a pile of rotten manure, there is absolutly nothing this country stands for that is right anymore. Attacking iraq to free them from saddam and eleminate terrorism? thats a joke, and certainly not a funny one.
if you can point one act of global good the bush adminstration did beyond it's selfish interests then I will consider it a complete success! the whole eleminating terrorism is as stupid as the governments supporting it, they attack a country, people rebell, they call them terrorists, they kill fuckloads of them, they take oil, the operation is a complete success! Oh wait someone is rebelling again? just throw them in guantanamo.
Take a look at this page too: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-050406-f
And let me say 3 more things.
One. If you think everyone in Guantanamo was an armed irregular in afghanistan or Iraq you are a fool. People have been shipped there from lot's of other places, like pakistan, bosnia, etc.
Two. When you capture an enemy soldier it hardly matters if he has a uniform, there are international conventions on how you should treat prisoners, and none of them consider torture acceptable.
Three. One of the things distinguishing a democracy from a dictatorship is the fact that when someone is arrested, his family is allowed to know that he is being detained and on what accusation. It is only dictatorships that make people just disappear.
The problem, though, is that the United States government has managed to garner a fair bit of power from War on Terror resolutions, and they probably won't want to part with it. As long as they can either count on or fake the spectre of terrorism, the War, in their eyes, never has to end, unless we actually get some ethics back into the Hill and the West Wing.
The problem with your idea is that it makes sense.
Just had a crazy thought, probably a little offtopic.... witchcraft. In true British (preferably Monty Python) style let's see if he floats in a vat of exceptionally dense water.
.45 you keep 'just in case'. Do something to protect yourselves. Be angry at the man who broke your laws and violated your security, as anyone with a belief in their laws would be, but also, be angry at those who you charge to protect you, for they have not taken the precautions you have, they have not protected you, they have not prevented this damage although preventing it is easy. Learn from your mistakes. If all you do is lock this man away forever with no hope of ever seeing daylight it will do nothing to stop someone else doing it tomorrow. Give him an appropriate sentence, and then look at how you can prevent this, rather than getting upset that someone proved you aren't perfect.
The man commited a crime. It seems that he is quite willing to admit this. He should be punished for that crime. Unfortunately, he did something that is seemingly impossible, breaking into the US Government (high, mighty, infallible, etc... ) despite being the greetest they could not stop this man's attack. The only reasonable (and appropriately medieval) explanation for this ability to penetrate the infallible walls guarding the US government's computers is witchcraft. Everyone knows how to deal with witchcraft. Get the stakes out, be wary of black cats, and let's find out if this great hacker weighs more than a duck.
Fortunately for him, (he is a jammy bastard) all he is facing is a while locked up in a prison without so much as an angry mob who have suffered a disappointing turnip harvest to plea with. Many have suffered far worse fates.
He did the same thing every script kiddy who infects a computer on US soil is doing. Are they terrorists? Actually, if it is as easy as they make out have they modified their security since?
A crime was committed. The criminal should be punished for the crime (not for the victim). Instead of making an example of him why not learn from this. If someone steals your bike, you buy a bigger chain, right? If someone steals your car, the next one has an alarm/immobilizer. If they break into your house you get stronger locks. You don't 'make an example' of the particular criminal who targeted you, just because it makes you feel better, you get proactive. Sick as I am of American bullshit propaganda, here is a suggestion: Take the right to bear arms and use it. There are many methods to defend yourselves from attacks over the internet. Go and arm yourself with virus checkers, firewalls and knowledge and prevent these attacks, it's your right, and it's far less controversial than the
Uh I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure it was illegal to break into Pentagon computers in 2001 and anybody smart enough to do it was probably smart enough to know it was illegal.
All those in the US who think that it is okay to "bend" the rules or change the rules should heed a great American. "Those that sacrifice Freedom for Security, deserve neither Freedom nor Security." - Benjamin Franklin If we keep sacrificing the Freedoms we have for Security, in the end, what are we trying to keep Secure?
And likewise, there's no substantive reason to think he won't.
Sure there is - Gitmo has to be the most expensive prison cell real estate in the world. Its size is limited as well as its scope. If there were 2000 empty cells and no waiting line he might have something to worry about. But none of those conditions apply so I'd bet good money he'll be placed elsewhere.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Don't most prisons let their hunger-striking prisoners starve? It's either that or force-feeding -- it's an interesting moral question as to which is worse, come to think of it.
Prisoners of war are always treated differently than regular criminals. Soldiers aren't generally charged with anything. Their release is arranged after the enemy government surrenders or dissolves.
All of Saddam Hussein's regular troops that were captured have been released, for example.
And if you're so worried about civilians getting captured, maybe you should be mad at the fighters who deliberately blend in with them.
Any honest and true American wouldn't care at all how long that pile of shit spends in jail before he is executed
Which kind of honest and true American is against the rule of law and habeus corpus? Is it one which has studied any of the texts our founding fathers were inspired by?
It's OK to route for a fair and speedy trial *and* execution, these things aren't exclusive.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
US forces raid a house in Afghanistan based on a tipoff that the house contains Al Qaeda members. People inside the house shoot back, killing a US soldier. US forces kill 2 and manage to capture 3 individuals: 2 Pakistanis and a Saudi. A quick search of the house finds that is loaded with guns and grenades. US forces have no idea who in the house was actually doing the shooting. US forces have no evidence that they are members of Al Qaeda other than the tipoff from locals (this would be hearsay testimony and is NOT admissable in a US civillian court). The region is dangerous, and the US forces leave with the prisoners quickly so that more US forces are not killed by snipers.
(1) If the prisoners were uniformed soldiers of an army, it is uncontested that the US could automatically hold them for the duration of the conflict without a trial.
(2) If the US proceeded with a criminal prosectuion in civilian courts, there is no way the three individuals would convicted. There is a lack of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The three dudes will simply claim that the other two people that the US killed were the only ones doing the shooting.
So what do you do? Do you let them go? (sounds pretty insane to me) Do you hold a military tribunal with a different standard of evidence than a civillian court?
The basic problem is that you are trying to apply civilian law to a warzone and to soldiers fighting in a war. This does not work.
Is it wise to hand over people to countries who think that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to them, where you can be thrown in jail without a trail for however long they see fit, where you might get tortured, ...
...
I mean my God, America pretends to be the humain country in the conflict with Irak, yet they had lawyers throw out the Geneva Convention on the basis of "Hey if they don't stick to it, why should we?"
You shouldn't sent people there, for no reason whatsoever
Articles 4 and 5 of Convention IV (Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War):
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.
Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
See here for a list of signatories to the Geneva conventions. You'll note that Afghanistan signed in 1956, although I'll confess I'm not 100% sure if that was still relevant at the time
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Prisoners of war are always treated differently than regular criminals. Soldiers aren't generally charged with anything. Their release is arranged after the enemy government surrenders or dissolves.
You can't have it both ways. If they are POWs they should be handled according to the Geneva Convention. If they are not POWs they deserve a fair trial so that they have the chance to establish their innocence.
Anything else is an evil and utterly Unamerican abuse of power and that is how things stand right now.
Jose isn't in Gitmo. My post was if this fellow is worried about Gitmo, he can avoid it for sure.
I don't agree with Padilla being held for years without trial or being charged, and I don't agree the government should be allowed to hold other people for years without trial just because they aren't on US soil.
What exactly are we fighting for? Our government makes people disappear, and even tortures people (sometimes to death). We're no kind of model of freedom anymore.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95