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.'"
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
That's more than most of the prisoners at Guantanamo get.
"Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
After reading the article, I think he's more likely to end up at Area 51.
I don't think he's moaning about "doing the time" he's just complaining about being treated as a "terrorist" and all the fun that involves.
Jail time - fair enough. Guantanamo Bay, perhaps not...
Acid House saves Souls
Uh... OK. He should plead insanity.
The owls are not what they seem
Having a trial by jury, then being convicted by them, then going through sentencing, and then having the option of appeal..... that's one thing.
Getting shipped off sans due process to an offshore prison camp for an indeterminate sentence for something you weren't convicted of... that's something else entirely.
He's not whining about the time he would have to serve if found guilty in a federal court which followed due process. What he's complaining about is that current US anti-terror laws make it possible for him to be held indefinitely without trial.
The US has claimed he will be tried in federal court just like any other criminal, but the very idea that he COULD be held indefinitely without any sort of due process under the current law is troubling.
If other countries believe the US will refuse to allow due process in any case it can label "terrorism," they will be unwilling to extradite criminals to us, which is a net loss for the cause of criminal justice.
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.
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.
I seriously hope you arn't suggesting that you think it would be ok to indefinitly hold the burglar in your basement, exacting various forms of torture? If not, your analogy fails to be analogous. If you do, well...
Not liking the actions of others does not give you a carte blanche to exact punishment of your choice.
- These characters were randomly selected.
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".
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.
...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."
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.
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.
The fact is that it is possible, and the current US laws violate fundamental principles of human rights and justice. Nobody should be extradited to the US while they have the ability to deny a fair and open trial, just like nobody should be extradited to China or North Korea.
I believe it could happen to him. They would just have to label him a terrorist. I don't see anything far fetched about him going to Guantanamo and being held without trial.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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.
It's actually quite easy to have large amounts of damages in any large organization. The cost of the hardware is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Once the machine has been compromised, they need to take it down. There is a cost associated with downtime. There is the time needed to build a new system to provide the same services. There is the time needed to correct the security problems. (Some would argue that this was just development time that was previously deferred by management decisions.) All of this is time just associated with correcting the problem caused by the compromise.
After that is done, there will be a committee formed to investigate the causes of the compromise. This committee will probably spend hundreds of man-hours on discussing the problem. There will be policies enacted to make sure the scapegoat path of responsibility is more clearly defined in the future. The cost of implementing and communicating these policies can't be calculated, so an estimate may be used, such as: 2 hours * total number of people in the organization * average salary.
Sure, the root cause of the problem is that there were insecure systems. However, the organization will always argue that the security wasn't a problem until the attacker came along. This is how they come to the conclusion that all of the associated costs were caused by the attacker. Taking responsibility for deploying insecure systems and failing to maintain them is the kind of thing that will prevent someone from ever being promoted into a position of responsibility.
Not true. BBC has a few good podcasts that I subscribe to, and if what they're reporting on is any indication of British public sentiment, they most definitely do believe it. There have been several stories in the last few weeks that seem to have been tipped off by a BBC reporter posing as a lawyer to get into Gitmo to interview one of these "detainees", who told stories about conditions there and forced feeding tantamount to torture. The Brits seem very concerned about it, to the point of getting Condi and ... some State Dept official whose name I forget on the BBC Today interview program and grilling them on it. (Not American media softball throwing, either. Real calling bullshit and holding feet to fire.) It represents an end-around bypassing due process, speedy and public trial, and probably a couple other Amendments. Frankly, they can't understand why Americans aren't as concerned as they are.
Dare to Hope. Prepare to be Disappointed.
Huh? Are you nuts? It might be just me, but there's this bit about "cruel and unusual punishment" in that old document... it's called the "Bill of Rights". Ever heard of it?
For morons like you who don't understand what this means, it essentially boils down to the requirement that the punishment for a crime has to fit the seriousness of the crime. You can't get a death sentence for stealing a pack of bubble gum, for example; and that's not just because the law doesn't allow for it. It's because such a law would be unconstitutional.
That being said, there's another issue here that so far, everyone seems to be glossing over: the fact that he's facing extradition to begin with. Doesn't the UK have laws against computer crime, too? If so, why does he have to be extradited, much less to a country that does not extradite its own citizens to the UK? (Yes, the extradition agreement between the UK and the US is one-way - does anyone still want to tell me that Blair isn't Shrub's lap dog?) And if the UK does NOT have laws against this... well, then he didn't do anything illegal, and cannot and should not be extradited. (Otherwise, using the same reasoning, China could ask for the extradition of people speaking out against its government in other countries, too, for example, and I think that most people would agree that that's not something that should happen.)
And finally, you can't blame him for being anxious. Bush has shown time and again that he doesn't care about whether what he does is legal or not (in fact, he has openly SAID that he considers himself to be above the law); given that, I'm not surprised that the guy is worried.
Sure, he did something wrong, and most likely, he committed a crime under UK laws. But that doesn't mean that his human rights and the constitutional rights he enjoys in the USA and all that simply vanish; and most importantly, it does mean that his dignity simply vanishes.
The Germans have a clause like that in their constitution: "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar" ("human dignity is inviolable") - it's the first clause in their constitution. Maybe it's time we get an amendment like that, too, so that concentration camps like the one on Cuba will be illegal. Well, not that the criminals running the country now would really care, of course...
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
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.
And if you think this is anything but a lawyer trick designed to prevent him from being extradited, I've got a fortune amassed by an ex-general in Nigeria that I could use some help getting out of the country...
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.
The fact that the U.S. of A. even has to make such a promise, puts them out of step with regards to the human rights most other 1st world countries take for granted. I'm not saying that people don't get dissappeared in other countries, just that the option isn't official public policy.
I read another article about the guy off that site, and found this bit of information very interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4721183.stm
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Uh... the definition of a secret court is one that no one knows about, so it's safe to say that no, no one does. That's the point.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
- 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 . .
Can you name even one person who has been "shipped off sans due process to an offshore prison camp" who wasn't captured in a war zone under arms while not wearing a uniform?
c le/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html
m l
Well, there were the 38 detainess who were released in March 2005 because the US government decided that they were not enemy combatants. None of these people received compensation for unjust imprisonment, and none of them have ever been told why they were arrested.
Or how about "Adel" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Or how about the five Chinese detainees who have been found not to be enemy combatants, but are still sitting in Guantanamo? http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.ht
The United States has chosen to put those people into jail rather than execute them. That is a favor that the US is doing out of the kindness of its heart. Your welcome.
"Kindness of its heart"? Fuck off. Guantanamo is a fucking embarassment to the USA, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to defend it.
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!
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.
I think it's more the case that we aren't given chance to find out if these people are guilty or anything first. Most people who deny their guilt in prison HAVE had the chance to convince people, and they failed to, usually (one would hope) for good reason. That's the bit that Guantanamo Bay lacks, and that's what sparks people being so pissed off with America about; not that they're holding people who say they're innocent, that they're holding people who haven't even been given chance to say they're innocent.
America's an absolute discrace, I find myself thinking more and more they deserve everything they get (I'll say hi to him in Guantanamo!)
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Interesting. This article suggests that the US has signed an amended extradition treaty recently. Bit disturbing too.
(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.
Did you miss his subject line? It says "Ignoramus is right". That would appear to be talking about you. :)
I think he replied to the wrong person. That's all.
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.
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
Case and point: Jose Padilla
Arrested on US soil. He wasnt charged until Nov 22, 2005. Held for YEARS before he was allowed counsel...
As an American, this crap pisses me off to no end.
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?
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...
I don't think he's moaning about "doing the time" he's just complaining about being treated as a "terrorist" and all the fun that involves.
Jail time - fair enough. Guantanamo Bay, perhaps not...
Well, he is lucky enough to live in a country that allows you to have legal representation, due process, and all that jazz.
This would be a non story if he were in the US. Few people hear about who gets detained at Guantanamo. Fortunately, Guantanamo is small, so you have to be of special interest to get an invitation to stay there. When the US government starts talking about using an entire island for these kinds of camps, I would be in the market for a safer country to live in. Bright men have considered using Madagascar as a good sized prison before. I'm sure there are other suitable locations as well for such a thing.
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
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.
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.
The reason we have those laws in place is because of an assumption on the part of the Founding Fathers that whenever the government is not being completely transparent, then it's up to no good. People in power always need a watchdog.
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."
The entire rest of the world ought to be punishing us with embargos and other economic sanctions -- we deserve it for letting the Bush Administration get away with something so blatantly unconstitutional and wrong!!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
So you've never broken a speed limit, lied to get out of jury duty, consumed alcohol before the age of 21, had sex before the age of 18, smoked a joint, or witnessed anyone else doing any of these things and not reported it (thereby aiding and abetting)? I congratulate you! You will be the last American left alive after all the others are brutally tortured to death for their crimes.
By the way, in addition to the common law tradition that punishment should be proportional to the crime, the men who wrote the US constitution probably thought it was worth emphasising because each and every one of them were criminals--terrorists, in fact. Insurgents against their own British government. But obviously you don't think the protection should have been extended to them--so I guess maybe the constitution shouldn't have been written in the first place?
"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
Alleged British hacker? This is outrageous. No person should be punished until they have been proven to be British beyond a reasonable doubt.
Since the US government is representing in open court that he's not going to go to Guantanamo (read the article), what he's doing is asserting that the US government is lying and possibly purveying false documents purportedly from the US embassy in London in a UK court.
He obviously hopes for a lighter sentence from a UK trial.
The US could make the argument that he should be rendered to Guantanamo. It is not. It's saying he's getting a federal trial on hacking charges. He's accusing the US government of lying to the UK government in open court in the UK. If he's right, that's going to absolutely ruin *any* extradition request from anywhere to the US, going forward for a long time.
It's highly unlikely he's going to Guantanamo and against the interests of the US government if they were to change their tune post extradition.
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.
Your argument is based on two key concepts:
...". Any changes of heart by various members of Congress afterward does not change the fact that they authorized these actions.
1)the false premise that the President made a unilateral decision to invade Iraq, against the wishes of the US Congress but the 'Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq' was passed by both the House and the Senate in 2002.
and
2)that the United States can take no military action without a formal declaration of war. That argument is ridiculous on it's face, as it would require a formal declaration of war any time that NATO or the UN or any of the many countries America has some mutual defense pact with, were in need of military assistance.
No matter how you try to spin it, this was not a case of the President's 'circumvention of Congress', this was a clear cut case of a President following the accepted method to take military action against a perceived threat to the United States. People may not like the result but the fact of the matter is Congress gave him their blessing and as you said, "If it looks like a duck
And from my understanding, the originalists interpretation of the constitution is to not read into it additional powers and protections that are not clearly stated (the right to privacy, 'seperation' of Church and State, etc..). According to the originalist view of the Constitution any rights or powers not directly assigned to or protected by the Federal government by the Constitution are the domain of the individual States, a view I happen to hold.
Either way, I wouldn't see this as a violation of that interpretation as the President did indeed request Congress's approval before taking action, how they chose to give it is left up to them. By adding a stipulation that a formal declaration of war be made every time a military action is taken it is you that is creating a new requirement under the Constitution where none previously existed, in clear opposition of the originalist philosophy.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
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.
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.