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.'"
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
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.
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.
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.
Remember that the U.S. has not signed on to the International Criminal Court for roughly the same reasons. If the US had signed on, then US servicemen or polititians could be hauled into the ICC on suspicion of war crimes and not given all the safeguards that the U.S. court system has. I guess that bit about "All men are created equal" needs revision now.
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.
Is this the same Amnesty international report that was written based almost entirely on the unsubstantiated accounts of released prisoners; many of which are currently serving sentences in their home countries.
The same Amnesty International that, even with a direct invitation to visit GITMO refused because they wouldn't be given unfettered access to all the prisoners but instead would only be permitted the same level of access as a visiting US Senator.
I don't know about you, but even if I couldn't get all the info, I would at least like to see the subject of my 'report' before condemning it; unless, of course, you already know what you are going to write and wouldn't want any facts to get in your way.
I'm guessing they left out the part about the younger prisoners that were held at GITMO who have said they missed it and while they didn't like being away from their families, much preferred their time at GITMO to their current living conditions back home. Something to do with the free education, good food, snorkeling on the pristine Cuban beaches, daily football, basketball and volleyball games with the guards.
And while I'm sure not everyone is treated to this level of kindness (it is a prison after all) the type of things Amnesty International now considers torture for the purposes of their reports on US detention centers has pretty much made the word meaningless.
If you want to see reports of inhumane treatement of detainees just look up some stories about the treatment of prisoners in pretty much any French jail.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
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."
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.
"Thanks, but you didn't answer my question"
How have I not answered your question? Your questions:
"but when did people start taking prisoner's accounts as gospel."
"How are they suddenly credible?"
"why people are in such a rush to believe things that could well be fabrications"
My answer was that it is not that we are automatically believing the accused are innocent, the problem we have is that they are not being given chance to defend themselves and claim their innocence, they are being held without being charged, and those who have been released, have been released without explanation as to why they were held, or any kind of most basic apology.
That said, if someone's not given chance by someone to say "it wasn't me", "I didn't do it", it makes you wonder why!
"How does that elevate the discussion?"
I already said what I intended to to help understanding and "elevate the discussion", and everyone who understands why I say what I did above that statement fully understands why I made the statement itself. America IS proving itself to be a complete disgrace (spelt right this time tho). You can't kidnap people outside the law (changing the law to allow you to kidnap people doesn't count), outside all human rights, and not expect the world get become furious with you. The only reason America's not in half as much trouble as it is at this moment is that the people doing the fighting (against) are religious nuts, which alienates themselves from the rest of the world who would actually agree with them more than they agree with what America is doing. But that won't last forever.
</rant>
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Granted, this was before the Geneva Conventions, but I wonder how it fits into your ideas.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Wow. And you're using this line to justify your support for Bush? Classic.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.