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.'"
Technically, I believe they are prisoners of war. As such, I don't believe they are entitled to a trial at this point.
Whether or not I agree with that is irrelevant, but I believe that is the legal reasoning.
The Al Qaidas down at Gitmo are gonna make this guy their girlfriend.
an ill wind that blows no good
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.. ;)
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!
Rules protecting POWs don't protect illegal combatants. This is a fact, regardless of how many faults Bush may have.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
They are illegal combatants. They thus lack the protections given to POWs, but as terrorists, they are not mere criminals - in addition, full criminal trial protections could compromise investigations and interventions needed to stop future terrorist attacks.
Or do you want to be in the next September 11?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Hyperbole, often? These prisoners are treated far too well, IMO.
Let me first refer you to the Gitmo Menu:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://w
Brutal! Let's examine. Breakfast: Fresh OJ, and fruit, pancakes, and coffee for breakfast. Lunch is brown rice & whole wheat pita, peaches, steamed asparagus, northern beans, and tea or poweraid drink. Dinner includes "Noodles Jefferson", bread, fruit, beans, carrots, baked chicken, and a drink. That's one day, the menus are shuffled.
If that's torture, then my diet of a bananna on the way out the door this morning, and a ham sandwich for lunch is a crime against humanity! (You do understand sarcasm, don't you?)
"Torture"? What the hell are you talking about? 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. They waged war against our country and are being kept alive only out of the restraint of the American government. Let me repeat: the Geneva convention does not apply. 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? That's brutality.
Torture: The prisoner are treated almost literally with kid gloves. Their Korans are handled with remarkable (undue, IMO) respect, in a gloved hand so that the filthy "infidel" guards don't descecrate their holy book. They get calls to prayer. Prayer rugs. Medical care (for many, for the first time in their lives!) Visits from Internation Red Cross. Most have gained weight. That we don't let the return to their sandtraps to plan another assault on America is torture? Whatever. BTW, there have been several who were released, only to be caught (or killed) later in battle. These aren't innocent bystanders. They're warriors commited to killing Americans.
I think the guards show considerable restraint. The prinsoners routinely curse and taunt, restate their commitment to murder Americans, they hurl feces and urine at the guards. Gouge eyeballs. Bite. Spit. Punch. Break arms and or fingers -- several guards have been seriously injured. Etc. Little angels, aren't they?
Look, you clearly have your point of view, but to call this one of the worst prisons in the world demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of real prisons.
I won't change your mind. You won't change mine. Bottom line: want to stay out of Gitmo? Don't fuck with America. That includes hacking our computers.
Al Qaeda operatives, officials note, did not fight according to the laws of war and, as a consequence, are not entitled to the privileges of honorable soldiers -- one of which is trial before court-martial.
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 . .
Um, right. Let's look at this from the "typical paranoid and/or evil US government" view. First, we have a foreign citizen monkeying with US GOVERNMENT (OMG!) property. Then, add in the fact that this property was military/defense systems (HOW DARE HE!). Then, add the fact that it was a COMPUTER NETWORK (HE'LL SET OFF THE NUKES!). If nothing else, they'd send him to Gitmo simply as an example (DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS BLARRGHGFDHG).
But while we are still at war with Al Qaeda we do not need to determine for sure if they are guilty. We cannot just fly our soldiers back from the front lines every time the need to testify. Any trials do not need to occur until Al Qaeda officially says "We give up" and turn themselves in (and follows through with it).
Until then I am sure that innocent people are suffering along side the guilty. But it is no different than any other form of collateral damage in warfare. We did not start the hostilities, and we will continue to fight until our enemies give up.
If they want to keep fighting for generations, their "soldiers" will remain incarcerated for generations. Innocents get killed in war, and they also get jailed unfairly. As soon as the insurgents stop fighting then everyone will get the fair treatment that they deserve.
--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Hear, hear! Wish I had mod points.
Carthago delenda est!
There's more. 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.
You mean they were isolated, locked up and had dogs barked at them?!!? My wife does that to me before 9:00am! Did the US Military run out of finger-nail splints? Was there no one to give them the ol' Texas Titty Twister?
I'm sorry, but psychological "torture" does not qualify as torture in my book. Until someone is physically abused, I don't call it torture. I don't care what AM-Nasty Intl says. Unless it's Club Med, it's not torture. If you want to see torture, take a look at Abu Ghraib before we got there. Pay a visit to a N. Korean work camp. See how Jewish prisoners (or suspected sympathizers) are treated in Palestine. AM-Nasty has not uttered a peep about these places but they are quick to call for Guantanimo's shut down because a female guard wasn't wearing a burka around the prisoners.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Guantanamo is a fucking embarassment to the USA, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to defend it.
Maybe among liberal societies, yes. But, to the contrary, I believe that Guantanamo is used as a symbol to Islamists that the United States is ready and willing to do everything that is necessary to win, even if that means bending (or reinterpreting) some of our more cherished values. In short, we're showing that, we'll take the gloves off and get nasty if it comes to that.
As extreme as that may sound to the modern reader, note that it's really not that much of a departure from wartimes of the past. Lincoln suspended both the right to free press and habeas corpus during the Civil War. During WWII, many suspected sympathizers of both Nazi Germany and Japan were put under surveillance (without warrant) and summarily deported (without trial).
Now the real question is (and this is one where I feel that reasonable people can disagree): Does the threat of terrorism constitute a danger to our survival as a nation to the point where such sacrifices in personal liberties are necessary?
If it is, (and back to the article) I think that Guantanamo should be reserved for terrorists and terrorist supporters only. Sending other criminals there diffuses the message to Islamists. Read the article though, the basis of this guy's claim that he's subject to Guantanamo is on an "unsigned and anonymous" note... Yeah, right... I think that it's likely that this is all just legal shenanigans on the part of the defense to capitalize off of outrage over Guantanomo bay, nothing more.
-Grym
First off I have ot say if this guy is indeed guilty of tampering with any computer he must be taken permanently off the street. If that mean execution so be it. If it means torture until his mental faclities colapse then so be it. There is no good reason for any of the crap that passes as hacking and we the people need to get seriously tough with respect to the problem. I have no compasion what so ever for people it get their jolleys breaking into computer or anything else.
As for the sunny base in Cuba, the only mistake we have made with those people there is to let them live. The reality is that a portion of (a very small portion actually) of the Arab world is hell bent on the destruciton of the rest of the world. That element must be totally eliminated. It really doesn't matter how it is done just that the mow down take place soon. Personally I prefer broad spectrum use of nuclear weapons to eliminate this degenerate element from the planet. Yeah I know that means some good goes out with the bad but frankly are they really that good if they can not put up a serious resistance to these trouble personalities.
As for our fearless leader his mistake and apparently his planning with respect to Iran is that he is far to worried about civilian deaths preferring to kill buidings and bridges instead of the people that are the problem. Recent revelations about planning the coming strike on Iran are a perfect example of his desire to kill off structures instead of people. The idea that anything productive can be had by blowing up a few underground faciliites with nuclear war heads is frankly stupid. Any attack on Iran must have as a component a significnat reduction in the countries population to have any lasting impact. Iragi is a perfect examply of what happens if you fail to displine the civilian population. Any attack against Iran must destroy at least a few cities completely at the onset. The entire Arab world needs to be throughly shaken, and the obliteration af a few cities in Iran is one of the best ways to accomplish that.