navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Theresa blocks US request
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Theresa blocks US request Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356


0 posted 2012-10-17 06:47 AM


This has got to be good.

McKinnon broke into the Pentagon systems and god knows what else.  He should be thanked by the Americans and paid for what he did, not prosecuted by them for gawd's sake.

Fine, the ego's of some military types in the US have been bruised.  A young guy in a flat in London could smash their wonderful security systems. Tough!

They should stop crying, and looking for a pointless "revenge" against someone who actually helped them, and get on with the job of stopping it happening again.

~shakes head~ I sometimes wonder that the fate of probably the whole world is in the hands of these Pentagon goons.  Despair.  

As it happened: Gary McKinnon extradition decision

Key Points

    Home Secretary Theresa May has blocked the extradition of computer hacker Gary McKinnon to the US

    The home secretary says there was no doubt Mr McKinnon is 'seriously ill' and the extradition
warrant against him should be withdrawn

    Mr McKinnon's mother says she is 'ove
rwhelmed' and the decision is a victory 'for the little person'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19962844

© Copyright 2012 moonbeam - All Rights Reserved
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
1 posted 2012-10-17 12:17 PM


.


McKinnon is accused of hacking into 97 United States military and NASA computers over a 13-month period between February 2001 and March 2002, at his girlfriend's aunt's house in London,[3] using the name 'Solo'.[2]
The US authorities claim he deleted critical files from operating systems, which shut down the US Army’s Military District of Washington network of 2,000 computers for 24 hours. McKinnon also posted a notice on the military's website: "Your security is crap". After the September 11 attacks, he deleted weapons logs at the Earle Naval Weapons Station, rendering its network of 300 computers inoperable and paralyzing munitions supply deliveries for the US Navy's Atlantic Fleet. McKinnon is also accused of copying data, account files and passwords onto his own computer. US authorities claim the cost of tracking and correcting the problems he caused was over $700,000.[4]
While not admitting that it constituted evidence of destruction, McKinnon did admit leaving a threat on one computer:


US foreign policy is akin to Government-sponsored terrorism these days … It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year … I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon


.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

2 posted 2012-10-17 02:22 PM


Thanks for the facts Huan.  Yes, indeed he made them all look like half brained monkeys didn't he!

You don't however say what you think.

The more I read about this though the more ridiculous it seems to me that the US are wasting resources chasing a guy with Aspergers who managed to make the military computer security of the US look stupid.  And moreover, by their own admission, made them think it was a real terrorist threat.

You really have to wonder how intelligent and competent the USA top people really are, firstly to be powerless to stop this in the first place, and secondly to make such a song and dance about punishing the poor guy, when what they should have been doing was trying to ask nicely how the hell he managed to do it.

Less machismo and ego from the US military, and more brains and commonsense would be good!  Or the next thing we know, someone really dangerous will just walk into their playpen!


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
3 posted 2012-10-17 04:13 PM


I don't understand why some people don't consider cybercrime to be as criminal as other crimes.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

4 posted 2012-10-17 04:50 PM


If you invite a mentally abnormal person into your house to create mayhem then it's your own fault if he does.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
5 posted 2012-10-17 05:46 PM


That's a ridiculous analogy.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
6 posted 2012-10-17 06:39 PM


.


If someone were to get into the computerized traffic control system
of a city and create confusion at intersections leading to fatal
accidents . . .whose fault would that be?

How was he invited?
If despite deadbolt locks someone can break into a home and
kill all the residents are those residents at fault for inviting their murders?

Was Hitler invited into Poland by its weak defences
and thereby absolved?


Just curious; how mentally normal was the girlfriend,(you know, the woman I assume was
getting in bed with him)?  How about his employer?

"mentally abnormal"  Is that a get out of jail free card?  Just how much harm do you get to do
with that in your hand?


I served in Vietnam.  You know:  Bang Bang
Boom Boom.  Do I get to run amok?


.


[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (10-17-2012 07:28 PM).]

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

7 posted 2012-10-18 10:56 AM


The mental abnormality is a relatively unimportant, yet salient, issue.

The analogy, was perhaps inadequately and too sketchily drawn.  I'll come back on that when I have more time.

The main point about the extradition however is that I suspect our Home Secretary has little faith in the US justice system not to effectively abuse it's authority in order to bolster the US military security position at the expense of an individual's human rights.

In other words, failing to secure their systems by legitimate software and hardware means, the US Military will seek to make an example of this "terrorist" (ffs) in order to deter others from testing their inadequate firewalls.

More later on the analogy.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
8 posted 2012-10-18 03:57 PM


quote:
And moreover, by their own admission, made them think it was a real terrorist threat.

It wasn't a terrorist threat, it was terrorist attack. And it should be dealt with accordingly. It stopped being anything benign the exact second files were deleted or corrupted.

No extradition? I wonder what Seal Team 6 is doing next week?

quote:
In other words, failing to secure their systems by legitimate software and hardware means, the US Military will seek to make an example of this "terrorist" (ffs) in order to deter others from testing their inadequate firewalls.

If I leave my front door wide open and you come in uninvited it is STILL breaking and entering. And if you trash the place, just because you can, it is still unconscionable, reprehensible, and deserving of suitably harsh punishment.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
9 posted 2012-10-18 05:19 PM


He did those things a decade ago and still hasn't been punished for them?
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

10 posted 2012-10-19 04:12 PM


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/17/gary-mckinnon-extradition-scepticism-us-justice

"In a broader context, though, the extradition order becomes more troubling and British skepticism understandable. This starts with the law governing the extradition process. A relic of the Blair government's complete capitulation to the Bush administration over the "war on terror", the treaty under which the US sought McKinnon's extradition is notably lacking in due process protections – even for British citizens accused of crimes while on British soil.

Not surprisingly, while sold as essential to combating terrorism, the broad latitude afforded by the treaty has been used to request the extradition of suspects who (like McKinnon) are not terrorist suspects. May's determination that the extradition order would violate the Human Rights Act of 1998 likely reflects a retrospective determination that the 2003 treaty did not adequately protect the interests of British citizens.

There are two additional reasons to be skeptical about the American government's request. First, it's hard to ignore the egregious double standards the US government has applied in cases broadly related to the "war on terror". The Obama administration has refused to prosecute any of the Bush administration's human rights abuses, while, on the other hand, it has very aggressively prosecuted whistleblowers. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this will have made even allies less likely to take at face value criminal charges laid by the US government.

Even more problematic, and likely to be an increasing difficulty with regardt to American requests for extradition, is the extraordinarily punitive American criminal justice system. The scale of incarceration in the US makes it a massive outlier among liberal democracies, and this scandalous state of affairs has to affect every extradition decision. The British government cannot, in fact, reasonably be confident that the charges against McKinnon would be balanced against a fair consideration of his illness. McKinnon would have faced up to 60 years in prison if convicted, and it would never be wise to assume that the American criminal justice system won't issue a disproportionately harsh sentence.

The Cameron government's refusal to extradite McKinnon certainly reflects the idiosyncratic facts of his individual case. But it almost definitely also reflects the damage done to the reputation of the United States by a completely broken criminal justice system. It's impossible for even the staunchest of US allies to look the other way when faced with the misplaced priorities and brutal mass incarceration that characterize the American practice of criminal law.

The realities of domestic politics make meaningful reform of these injustices enormously difficult, so the international reputation of the US will continue to suffer. And there will be increasing numbers of cases in which countries refuse to extradite people to face charges in American courts"

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
11 posted 2012-10-19 04:38 PM


.


Oh please . . .

Simple question, where would The West
be without the US?  Who would be relied
on instead; France, Germany, England,
Sweden?


"a fair consideration of his illness"


That Get Out of Jail Free Card again.
Was he ill or just cool before he got caught?


.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

12 posted 2012-10-19 05:12 PM


Quite apart from the serious issues raised in the Guardian article quoted above, the replies in this thread from US citizens who I respect as rational, intelligent and articulate guys, just goes to show how out of touch many US officials and citizens are with the way people think in much of  the remainder of the world.  While 9/11 was a terrible disaster, it, above all else, appears to have sensitised US attitudes to “terrorism” to the point of irrationality and overreaction, and that’s not good.  

When we have someone as balanced as Ron suggesting that this guy was a terrorist perpetrating a terrorist attack, in other words, in all seriousness believing that there was an intent to cause harm to the US government and citizens then something is very out of kilter.

The analogy I used above, was of course simplistic.  Expanded, it would go something like:

****

Imagine a rich powerful family in a splendid house with all mod cons, living across the street from the little guys in their adequate but insignificant dwellings.  The rich family, deter really bad guys from entering the neighbourhood with their mere presence and power, but they sure as hell make sure that they let the little guys across the street know that it’s their presence that protects them.  

Most days the rich powerful family drive out in their big cars and helicopters and on the way out make darned sure to let the little guys know just how big and powerful they are.  Every opportunity, boasting that they are the greatest family in town, the wealthiest, the most powerful, and most of that they are untouchable, above the laws of the town, and immune to harm or attack because of their immense power and tight security.  

This goes on for years, and while the little guys are kinda grateful to be under the protection of the big powerful family, they begin to resent the boastfulness, the refusal to show any humility, the fact that even when some members of the big family try to hold out an olive branch by say, shaking the hand of one of the little guys, the other members of the big family taunt their weak member for showing kindness to inferiors.

Time passes and the big family gets bigger and, the bigger and more powerful it gets the more paranoid it becomes.  Rewards in the big family are big, but so are punishments.  Everything is big big big, the family lose touch with balance, and the realities of the rest of the town.  They become more paranoid more insular and more boastful of their power and security.

One day, a kid from the little guys’ families spots an open grating in big family’s cellar window.  He crawls through; delighted he’s managed to penetrate the much vaunted security of the big guys!  Inside, he finds all sorts of interesting treasures, and in a fit of pique and jealousy, for all the taunts and boasting suffered over the years, he goes berserk and has a grand smash up party.

Caught red handed!  He scampers back to the little guys place and hides.  Try as they might the big family can’t get the little family to hand the kid over to them for punishment.  Sure, they say, he broke the law, but come on guys, you kinda asked for it.  The big guys don’t see it that way at all.  The kid made them look fools, he smashed mom’s best pair of heels, he broke the door alarm, he made the big guys look VULNERABLE.  They totally need to prove that people who do that to them get harsh treatment.  

They give the kid’s actions a frightening name.  “Terrorism” they call it!  It’s a terrorist attack they yell.  Hand him over for punishment.

But the little guys stand firm.  And who can blame them.  For the big guys themselves are little more than kids.  Well intentioned kids, but kids nevertheless with big guns and big egos, capable of harming themselves and others more than they understand.

The spokesman for the little guys sends a message to the big family.  “When you yourselves grow up you may have our kid, and you may judge him.”

The big family sulk and fizz for a few days, and then the big guy in the big family with the biggest gun and the biggest ego, whispers, half ashamed seeing as it’s a kid they are talking about, “I wonder what Seal Team 6 are doing this evening?”

****

The actions of McKinnon were wrong.  Whether they were intentionally destructive I very seriously doubt given the illness he has (which my wife’s nephew also has).   Showing intent beyond any reasonable doubt is normally a requirement of a successful criminal prosecution of this nature.

To suggest that this was even a crime at this stage, let alone a terrorist attack!!,  is plainly wrong, and is fairly typical of the cowboyish prejudging nature of the US judicial system on occasions.  Not to mention the US media and some of it’s more hot blooded public servants.

No doubt the British legal system, to which McKinnon is apparently happy to surrender himself, will take a more balanced and rational approach to the matter.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

13 posted 2012-10-19 05:16 PM


quote:< Oh please . . .

Simple question, where would The West
be without the US?  Who would be relied
on instead; France, Germany, England,
Sweden?


See, there’s the whole problem in a “simple question”!

“Who would be relied on?”

And being relied on, as the US undoubtedly is, gives the US the “right” to a different set of rules and behaviour?  Perhaps it does.

But as long as it does, the US will have to get used to this kind of reaction from the remainder of the world.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
14 posted 2012-10-19 10:04 PM


quote:
The big family sulk and fizz for a few days, and then the big guy in the big family with the biggest gun and the biggest ego, whispers, half ashamed seeing as it’s a kid they are talking about, “I wonder what Seal Team 6 are doing this evening?”

It was a joke, Moon. But as with most humor, it was not without a grain of truth. I have absolutely no doubt there were people in Pakistan who felt the same way about Bin Laden that you apparently feel about McKinnon. Yes, of course, I recognize the difference in degree. It is a huge, huge difference. But there is no difference in kind. Both Bin Laden and McKinnon are criminals seeking to escape justice.

When countries willingly harbor criminals they would be fools to think there won't be repercussions. No, I'm not really suggesting we should send Seal Team 6 to punish them. On the other hand, I think there might be those who would be slightly less willing to send Seal Team 6 to help them, either. When one International agreement can be ignored, all such agreements are immediately brought into question.

It doesn't matter if you want to label McKinnon a terrorist, a criminal, or a poor misguided youth. He broke the law. It's really not any more complicated than that.



moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

15 posted 2012-10-20 04:03 AM


“It was a joke, Moon.”

Coming from you Ron of course it was.  But, as you rightly surmise, America ain’t run by enlightened Rons (more than a grain in what you say).

“He broke the law. It's really not any more complicated than that.”

Yes, it seems that he broke a law.  But, as always if you’ve read your Rumpole, it is a lot more complicated.  

That’s part of the problem here; the step from someone apparently breaking certain US laws, to their being locked away for 60 years, is a good deal smaller in the US than in practically every other liberal democracy.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
16 posted 2012-10-20 03:52 PM


.


"Yes, it seems that he broke a law.  But, as always if you’ve read your Rumpole, it is a lot more complicated."  


No it isn't.


"But as long as it does, the US will have to get used to this kind of reaction from the remainder of the world."


And the same in return.


.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
17 posted 2012-10-20 06:38 PM


And the same in return.


yes.

Lady Goodman
Member
since 2012-10-04
Posts 193

18 posted 2012-10-21 08:06 PM


An interesting topic. (And an interesting topic for me is when the replies are every bit as valid and revealing as the initial point of view)

Not that any would care, but it brought to mind some reading I'd done by Thomas Szasz:

"Lawmakers do not discover prohibited rules of conduct, calledcrimes, they create them. Killing is not a crime; only unlawfulkilling is—for example, murder. Similarly, psychiatrists do notdiscover (mis)behaviors, called mental diseases, they create them.Killing is not a mental disease; only killing defined as due to mentalillness is; schizophrenia thus “causes” hetero-homicide (not called“murder”) and bipolar illness “causes” auto-homicide (called“suicide”).My point is that psychiatrists, who create diagnoses of mentaldiseases by giving disease names to personal (mis)conduct,function as legislators, not as scientists."

To be read in full context:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18764881/Szasz-Thomas-Mental-Illnes-is-Still-a-Myth

Now, as to what I think? The action was a crime, and should and would be prosecuted by the laws of the United States. I believe that the situation begs an answer to a related question of "Does 'might' make right?"

A question that will continue to surface as the world population continues to interplay via the internet socially, and resultingly, even as potentially deadly mishaps at times, legally trespassing laws that were previously confined to material borders.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

19 posted 2012-10-22 06:03 AM


quote:

No it isn't.



Perhaps he should be put on trial, if there is convincing evidence of a crime.  But purely on the evidence of this thread it seems fairly certain that he’s already been convicted, with no mitigating circumstances allowed, and with a potential penalty far in excess of that that would be likely to be imposed elsewhere.  A large part of my problems with the US justice system and media (and by extension some citizens) is the propensity for even quite intelligent people to rush to judgement when they perceive their country is being disrespected or belittled in any way.


quote:


And the same in return.

And what in return? A petulant hissy fit every time the US doesn’t get its own way because the rest of the world thinks differently?

As Karen, so succinctly hinted: might is not right.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

20 posted 2012-10-22 06:16 AM


quote:
Not that any would care, but it brought to mind some reading I'd done by Thomas Szasz:

"Lawmakers do not discover prohibited rules of conduct, calledcrimes, they create them. Killing is not a crime; only unlawfulkilling is—for example, murder. Similarly, psychiatrists do notdiscover (mis)behaviors, called mental diseases, they create them.Killing is not a mental disease; only killing defined as due to mentalillness is; schizophrenia thus “causes” hetero-homicide (not called“murder”) and bipolar illness “causes” auto-homicide (called“suicide”).My point is that psychiatrists, who create diagnoses of mentaldiseases by giving disease names to personal (mis)conduct,function as legislators, not as scientists."

To be read in full context: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18764881/Szasz-Thomas-Mental-Illnes-is-Still-a-Myth

Now, as to what I think? The action was a crime, and should and would be prosecuted by the laws of the United States. I believe that the situation begs an answer to a related question of "Does 'might' make right?"

A question that will continue to surface as the world population continues to interplay via the internet socially, and resultingly, even as potentially deadly mishaps at times, legally trespassing laws that were previously confined to material borders.

Yes you are right Karen, interesting article too, if a bit extreme.  I am no lover of psychiatrists believe me. I see two close up examples of so called mental illness in my family: a sister in law who fakes memory loss and depression in order to get sympathy and manipulate people, no to mention a larger divorce settlement; and a nephew, by marriage, who since he was 4 years old has had sever Asperger-like symptoms. I have no hesitation in condemning the former, but saying that the latter should no be judged by “ordinary” standards in his conduct.

In the present instance of McKinnon imo it’s a straightforward case of the UK not trusting the US to give him a fair trial, and not accepting that the potential sentence would be fair. And, for once, standing firm on moral grounds.


Lady Goodman
Member
since 2012-10-04
Posts 193

21 posted 2012-10-22 02:36 PM


Um, slight correction.

Karen did not propose a position, she simply asked the question if might makes right?

Because Karen knows that the answer is one of those there slippery slopes and is very well aware that the definition of "might" can be defined in terms of say, brute muscle,  economics, intelligence, or even devastating retaliation. Nod. Much to think about when you factor all that in...

The Szasz articile is a bit extreme, but I think he takes an extreme stance and makes a rational case. If you read further, you'll note that he makes no defense of criminals using psychiatric diagnoses either--he states a strong case and obvious need for social order.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
22 posted 2012-10-22 03:25 PM


Has he been trialed by the law of his own country?   Or is it legal to hack into other countries' security in the UK?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
23 posted 2012-10-22 04:36 PM


quote:
But purely on the evidence of this thread it seems fairly certain that he’s already been convicted, with no mitigating circumstances allowed, and with a potential penalty far in excess of that that would be likely to be imposed elsewhere.

Moon, you should at least try to put a few periods between your contradictions.

I would be the first to agree we can't convict a man without a trial. In the same vein, however, neither mitigating circumstances nor penalties can be decided in the absence of a trial. You accuse us of prejudging, but that is EXACTLY what you and your government are doing. You have both judged the man's guilt and decided what penance he should be asked to pay. Then you decided that your (pre)judgment should supercede what you "think" the judgment of the courts will be.

The law is the law. You can either uphold it or seek to change it. What cannot be allowed, except at the risk of anarchy, is for people to think they can pick and choose which laws they will abide and which they will ignore.



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
24 posted 2012-10-22 06:34 PM


.


'What cannot be allowed, except at the risk of anarchy, is for people to think they can pick and choose which laws they will abide and which they will ignore."


Like the President?


.


Lady Goodman
Member
since 2012-10-04
Posts 193

25 posted 2012-10-22 06:40 PM


Well John, that was the reasoning of former President Richard Nixon...
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

26 posted 2012-10-23 08:55 AM



quote:< The Szasz articile is a bit extreme, but I think he takes an extreme stance and makes a rational case. If you read further, you'll note that he makes no defense of criminals using psychiatric diagnoses either--he states a strong case and obvious need for social order.


I read to the end, and I agree that one shouldn’t default to a position where you automatically believe the shrinks.  On the other hand where you have a disorder which has been in evidence since early childhood, with no possibility of “faking” I think that the situation is very different.


moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

27 posted 2012-10-23 09:02 AM


quote:

Karen did not propose a position, she simply asked the question if might makes right?




And Rob, didn’t say she did PROPOSE – Rob said she “hinted at”.  And I’d be interested to hear anyone defend the proposition that might IS right.  It doesn’t seem tenable to me on moral grounds at any rate



moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

28 posted 2012-10-23 09:08 AM


quote:
Has he been trialed by the law of his own country?   Or is it legal to hack into other countries' security in the UK?



The DPP is deciding on this now Ess.  No hacking isn't legal, but it's legal to have a fair trial.  

Lady Goodman
Member
since 2012-10-04
Posts 193

29 posted 2012-10-23 11:27 AM





Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
30 posted 2012-10-23 12:21 PM


.


Just how long has it been . . .
Ten years.  How reasonable is that?
How fair?  Is the defence to wait
for deaths and/or retirements to win
for them?
.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

31 posted 2012-10-23 04:09 PM


quote:
quote:
________________________________________
But purely on the evidence of this thread it seems fairly certain that he’s already been convicted, with no mitigating circumstances allowed, and with a potential penalty far in excess of that that would be likely to be imposed elsewhere.
________________________________________

Moon, you should at least try to put a few periods between your contradictions.

Er, was that another joke Ron?  

Anyway, whatever! it makes perfect sense.  Some in this forum seem to have decided his guilt already, and, as perceived from the UK, mitigating health grounds are unlikely to be taken into consideration in any trial, and again, as perceived by the UK, the penalty is likely to be excessive.

And talking of contradictions, here’s a REAL one from you:

quote:
I would be the first to agree we can't convict a man without a trial.

Well, why are you in this case then?

quote:
Both Bin Laden and McKinnon are criminals seeking to escape justice.


A criminal Ron??!!  Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”!  Good grief, practically every post you and Huan make to this thread suggests that Theresa May was exactly right in refusing to extradite.

quote:
You accuse us of prejudging, but that is EXACTLY what you and your government are doing. You have both judged the man's guilt and decided what penance he should be asked to pay. Then you decided that your (pre)judgment should supercede what you "think" the judgment of the courts will be.

Yes I suppose you are right Ron – we are “prejudging”.  

We AREN’T prejudging McKinnon though.

However I guess we ARE prejudging  the “justice” he is likely to receive in the US.

Understandably I think.

McKinnon probably should be tried, though I’m willing to leave that decision to the DPP.  But why, morally, should we extradite him to be tried in an environment (the US justice system as influenced by the military)  where on occasions (those occasions generally associated with loss of face, chagrin, embarrassment and testosterone) it would seem an extradited citizen will not get a fair trial.

Huan has apparently decided already that Aspergers is “no excuse”, and you, incredibly, mentioned McKinnon and Bin Laden in the same sentence – a comparison I do not proposed even to grace with a moment’s more debate.  

But the fact that you both, intelligent and balanced members of the community without any particular face saving motive, are so certain he is a criminal without any trial having taken place, doesn’t bode well for the reception he’ll get from your hard bitten military security types who were made to look idiots by a foreigner.

quote:
The law is the law. You can either uphold it or seek to change it.  

Quite right and OUR law, including the presumption of innocence before guilt is proven, will no doubt be visited upon McKinnon in due course.

quote:
The law is the law. You can either uphold it or seek to change it.  

Quite right again, so it’s a pity that the US didn’t have more respect for the UK’s plight when faced with REAL terrorists:

“It is perhaps worth remembering that during the bleak days of the Northern Ireland Troubles, when Britain was beset by IRA terrorism, the American courts repeatedly rejected or delayed numerous British government extradition requests for the return of suspected or convicted IRA fugitives. The justification often given was that the motivation of the IRA members was “political”.

The IRA, among other things, attempted to assassinate the entire Cabinet with the Brighton bomb, and murdered and injured innumerable British soldiers and civilians. Can you imagine, if a terrorist group repeatedly performed similar actions on American soil, the reaction of the US government to a country that sheltered its members or escaped convicts on the grounds that their actions were “political”?

The containment of terrorism requires strong international co-operation, and the memory of those dark days should not make us churlish in response. But we need to make sure that the terms of the Special Relationship do not include an inbuilt double standard. And in the meantime, no one in Britain should feel guilty for refusing to hand over a non-violent British computer hacker with serious psychiatric problems to the retribution of the US courts.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9622065/Gary-McKinnon-humanity-wins-out-over-spooks.html

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
32 posted 2012-10-23 04:35 PM


.


“While not admitting that it constituted evidence of destruction, McKinnon did admit leaving a threat on one computer:


US foreign policy is akin to Government-sponsored terrorism these days … It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year … I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels …”


Is he dis-admitting this now; is this another abnormal thing?  Do you really believe this ten years and counting
is about him being innocent?

What if somebody had died?  Is that what it takes?


.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

33 posted 2012-10-23 04:50 PM


quote:
  Do you really believe this ten years and counting is about him being innocent?  

No I believe it’s about a misguided, ill-conceived and vindictive pursuit, which deserved to fail, and hopefully has failed.

“It would seem that the hacker was clear-headed about one thing – the message he posted on the military’s website saying “Your security is crap”.

The sensible American approach to this cybercrime, one might have thought, would be to ascertain that he was not connected to any potentially violent groups, and – on discovering that he was basically an odd fellow conducting a UFO hunt on his own from a flat in north London – breathe a sigh of relief, tighten up on cyber-security, and let the miscreant face some proportionate punitive measure in the UK. The US government claims that McKinnon’s actions cost it over $700,000. That is a considerable sum, but one might equally consider the potential cost to the US had he not exposed the holes in its security, and those failings had been exploited by a more sinister hacker.”

(See telegraph link above)

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

34 posted 2012-10-23 05:05 PM


quote:
  What if somebody had died?  Is that what it takes?

The IRA, among other things, attempted to assassinate the entire Cabinet with the Brighton bomb, and murdered and injured innumerable British soldiers and civilians. Can you imagine, if a terrorist group repeatedly performed similar actions on American soil, the reaction of the US government to a country that sheltered its members or escaped convicts on the grounds that their actions were “political”?

Apparently it takes a lot more than people dying to get the US government to extradite CONVICTED murderers.  The US is in no position to postulate hypocritical “what if’s”.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
35 posted 2012-10-23 07:22 PM


quote:
And talking of contradictions, here’s a REAL one from you:

    quote: I would be the first to agree we can't convict a man without a trial.

Well, why are you in this case then?

Isn't that obvious, Moon? I would like to see the man stand trial.

quote:
A criminal Ron??!!  Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”!

Okay, I stand corrected. McKinnon is a suspect in a serious crime. He has been indicted by a Grand Jury in West Virginia and should be required to stand trial to ascertain guilt or innocence.

McKinnon is not, in the strictest sense, a criminal. He's a fugitive.

quote:
Quite right again, so it’s a pity that the US didn’t have more respect for the UK’s plight when faced with REAL terrorists:

I tend to agree. Extradition agreements should be honored by both sides without making prejudgments or excuses. I also agree that "the memory of those dark days should not make us (England) churlish in response."

Two wrongs still don't make a right.

quote:
The mental abnormality is a relatively unimportant, yet salient, issue.


quote:
On the other hand where you have a disorder which has been in evidence since early childhood, with no possibility of “faking” I think that the situation is very different.


I don't think you've been entirely clear, Moon, on just how unimportant or salient the Asperger's syndrome is to your perspective. Perhaps you could clarify that for us?

For the record, Asperger's isn't a dot on a line, but rather is a spectrum ranging from very mild to potentially debilitating. Some would bristle at hearing it called a "mental abnormality," and indeed, many professionals insist we call it a Syndrome and not a Disorder.

quote:
(Psychologist Valerie) Gaus doesn't view Asperger Syndrome as a disease. Instead, she believes it’s a “unique way of processing information” that creates not just vulnerabilities but “strengths that can help you succeed in life.” For instance, a person with AS might be “a very systematic thinker,” which makes it difficult to “interface with humans,” but also makes them a winning engineer, she said.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2011/debunking-6-myths-about-asperger-syndrome/all/1/



Although discovered in 1944, Asperger Syndrome didn't become an official diagnosis until 1992. Anyone more than twenty years old has probably escaped diagnosis unless their life has been severely impacted by the condition. Posthumous diagnoses for Asperger's have included names like Albert Einstein, Amadeus Mozart, Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Thomas Jefferson, Emily Dickinson, Andy Warholl, Hans Christian Andersen, Lewis Carroll, James Joyce, Jonathan Swift, Nikola Tesla, Alan Turing, W.B. Yeats, and a long litany of other less well known -- but equally productive -- names from history.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3326317/Albert-Einstei   n-found-genius-through-autism.html

http://www.autismtoday.com/articles/Einstein,%20Newton,%20Moz   art%20achieved%20genius%20through%20autism.ASP?cat=1

http://autismmythbusters.com/general-public/famous-autistic-people/

Asperger's, in short, isn't necessarily an excuse for the bad choices people make. Many of us live with it every day of our lives, all without invading or destroying the property of others. We know the difference between right and wrong, and when we cross that line it's not because we were forced to cross it by the way our brains are wired but, rather, because we made a choice to cross it.

Not that it should matter.

Schizophrenia is a mental disorder that DOES blur the lines between right or wrong, unlike Asperger's Syndrome, but we still don't let people use it as an excuse to break the law. Healthy or ill, society needs to be protected from people who would attack it. The former should be punished, the latter should be treated, but neither should be allowed the freedom to continue unfettered.

The guilt or innocence of Gary McKinnon shouldn't be decided by politicians. They have neither the expertise nor the necessary lack of self-interest. Politicians are too easily swayed by popular opinion, by emotional appeals, by their own ubiquitous need to be reelected at every turn.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9624829/We   -keep-Gary-McKinnon-but-lose-the-trust-of-the-Americans.html



moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

36 posted 2012-10-24 12:27 PM


quote:
  I tend to agree. Extradition agreements should be honored by both sides without making prejudgments or excuses. I also agree that "the memory of those dark days should not make us (England) churlish in response."

Two wrongs still don't make a right.


I agree, they don’t.  And I admit also that there is more than a whiff of tit-for-tat thinking going on here in the UK.

That’s not really helpful, but it clouds the real point which is that we have little evidence to suggest that the US position has materially changed since the IRA days, particularly when it comes to extraditions that are “politically” motivated.  And here I agree with you totally.  Perhaps Ms May did have some political motivation, but then the US military sure as hell do.
  
All of which is a pity, because I also admit that things seem to be changing under Obama.  This case began under the previous (Yo-Blair) administration, and so it’s a bit ironic that the chickens have come home to roost just as you seem to have found in Obama a President who has the grace to deal with the rest of the world in a mature and decorous manner.

However, the amount of vilification that your lovely President comes in for every time he is perceived to be anything other than robustly dominant with foreigners, should be evidence enough that your country has some way to go yet on the way to understanding humility towards, and respect for, those weaker than you.

Obama is a refreshing exception, and I daresay that one day, if he is re-elected, the machismo culture that permeates some sections of your culture and political/military hierarchy may begin to modify.  When that day comes other countries may feel more comfortable about entrusting their citizens to your justice system in cases of this kind.

quote:
quote:
________________________________________
The mental abnormality is a relatively unimportant, yet salient, issue.
________________________________________
quote:
________________________________________
On the other hand where you have a disorder which has been in evidence since early childhood, with no possibility of “faking” I think that the situation is very different.
________________________________________
I don't think you've been entirely clear, Moon, on just how unimportant or salient the Asperger's syndrome is to your perspective. Perhaps you could clarify that for us?


Yes I can.  I have never thought that Asperger’s should be an automatic bar on anyone standing trial, and to that extent it’s unimportant in the main question of whether he should stand trial at all.  It is however a potential factor in deciding whether the US is a fit jurisdiction for him to be tried in.

The second comment of mine which you quote was directed specifically at Karen’s article and was therefore a general observation about mental disorder and “faking”.  However since you raise the issue again it’s worth exploring I think.

Asperger’s I believe is now recognised as being part of the autism spectrum, rather than as a specific disorder.  That makes it doubly impossible for me to say anything at all about McKinnon’s situation or culpability in this respect.  All I can do is speak from personal experience and extrapolate the possibilities.  

My nephew sits in a dim room 9 a.m. till midnight most days in front of his computer.  Any attempt to make him leave the room, go to school or do anything he doesn’t want to do results in very distressing self harm.  He has been like this for the last 10 years. He is now 17, and worse than ever.  He has no qualifications, no social life, no friends – his life such as it is revolves around a computer screen; and he is very adept at many aspects of computing.  The only person who hasn’t effectively given up on him is his mother.  The authorities and social care don’t want to know.

I won’t go into any more details, but suffice it to say that I have absolutely no doubt that he would be capable of not understanding the implications of some of his actions in cyberspace, and of imagining he is some sort of powerful entity out there in the ether (sorry terrible syntax, but you know what I mean).  An extension of one of his games maybe.  The whole cyber thing definitely plays into his mental problems so that he might well have no conception of the seriousness of something he did.  In contrast he would, I am sure, be totally aware of, and therefore knowingly responsible for, “real life” wrongdoing such as hitting someone or stealing.  

I have no idea of whether McKinnon is like my nephew, but if so, then attitudes such as some of those displayed in this discussion would certainly make me resist any extradition to the US.

Finally, the more I read about this the more I have doubts about the so called “evidence”.

Can someone really do $700,000 worth of damage by hacking?  Isn’t this the cost of sorting out the insecure network following the breach?

From the moment McKinnon started posting ridiculous claims (which Huan has several times quoted) it should have been quite clear that a nutter was at large.

The absurd claims about "damage", the portrayal of McKinnon as some sort of "super-hacker", and the threat of hugely disproportionate punishment all tell a story here. It's preferable for people involved to exaggerate his capabilities and hang him out to dry, than to admit to their own criminally negligent failings that endangered US national security.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
37 posted 2012-10-24 03:43 PM


quote:
I have no idea of whether McKinnon is like my nephew ...

No, Moon, you don't. Neither do I. And neither do your politicians. That's exactly why it should be handled by the courts.

quote:
Can someone really do $700,000 worth of damage by hacking? Isn’t this the cost of sorting out the insecure network following the breach?

Damage from a data breach can easily exceed that, Moon, and by magnitudes of order. Especially when some yahoo starts arbitrarily deleting files. Imagine what it would cost you in time and money if you lost just the contents of your wallet? Whether it happened in this instance I don't know. Neither do you. Again, that's exactly why we have courts.

quote:
The absurd claims about "damage", the portrayal of McKinnon as some sort of "super-hacker", and the threat of hugely disproportionate punishment all tell a story here.

I don't think you're in a position to answer any of those concerns, Moon. Neither are your politicians. That's why we generally don't let the public, the press, or the politicians judge the guilt or innocence of the accused. That's why we have courts.

Incidentally, as to the "disproportionate punishment," I thought it was interesting that McKinnon was quoted in one article as expecting to get "three or four years in prison" for his (alleged) crimes. Clearly, that wasn't enough to dissuade him. He only grew anxious when faced with that "disproportionate punishment" that so seems to concern you. Perhaps if he had known what he faced, and perhaps if the next yahoo that comes along knows what to expect, a whole lot of time, money, and potentially lives can be saved. Punishment shouldn't be about vengeance, in my opinion, but it SHOULD be a deterrent to crime. A slap on the wrist, or in this case a free pass, serves only to send the wrong message.



moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

38 posted 2012-10-24 04:31 PM


quote:
  quote:
________________________________________
I have no idea of whether McKinnon is like my nephew ...
________________________________________

No, Moon, you don't. Neither do I. And neither do your politicians. That's exactly why it should be handled by the courts.


~sigh~ Ron, I’ve never argued otherwise.  I don’t disagree with you.  I doubt our politicians disagree with you.  The issue that’s causing the debate isn’t WHETHER he should be tried, but WHO should try him.  

And maybe Ms May IS in the best position to determine that, don’t you think?

quote:
  ________________________________________
Can someone really do $700,000 worth of damage by hacking? Isn’t this the cost of sorting out the insecure network following the breach?
________________________________________

Damage from a data breach can easily exceed that, Moon, and by magnitudes of order. Especially when some yahoo starts arbitrarily deleting files. Imagine what it would cost you in time and money if you lost just the contents of your wallet?


Ok, you are the expert.  I’m happy to believe you. :

I take your point on the deterrent too.  I agree with it to an extent, although I’ve seen too many instances of sentences being apparently overly harsh to send a signal to future offenders, not to wonder how “fair” that is to the one who is being made an example of.  I’m not going to argue the point.

The nub of this interesting debate for me, has however been the central question of whether May was right to damage US/UK relations in pursuit of some morally right cause.  I still think she was.  I still don’t think that certain elements of US administration, military and society, have grown up enough to be trusted with the sort of judgements to be made in a case like this.  

If the guy was to be handed over to Obama clones to be tried, I’d send him tomorrow.  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
39 posted 2012-10-24 08:36 PM


quote:
The nub of this interesting debate for me, has however been the central question of whether May was right to damage US/UK relations in pursuit of some morally right cause.

The world needs people who are willing to do what's right rather than what is expedient. I don't, however, believe this is one of those times. Protecting the innocent is admirable and, yes, perhaps morally right (not an argument that usually interests me much). Shielding the guilty, however, is a mistake.

The articles I've read have said that McKinnon will almost certainly NOT be charged under UK law because of lack of evidence. Since the alleged crime essentially took place on US soil, it makes perfect sense that's where the evidence would be. I honestly don't know if your courts have subpoena powers sufficient to the case.

quote:
I still don’t think that certain elements of US administration, military and society, have grown up enough to be trusted with the sort of judgments to be made in a case like this.

Maturity has nothing to do with it, Moon. I already said I don't believe politicians should make judgments of guilt or innocence, and that's as true of our politicians as it is of yours. Both are too easily swayed by self-interest.

Both, in other words, are too inclined to do what is expedient, not what they believe to be right.

While it is up to our executive branch to pursue extradition, the judgment of McKinney would fall to the judicial branch. The fate of a judge in this country doesn't depend, one way or the other, on his verdicts. They are protected, by the system, from succumbing to their own self-interest. I won't pretend it's a perfect system, but it's a far cry better than letting politicians get involved. Yours or ours.


Lady Goodman
Member
since 2012-10-04
Posts 193

40 posted 2012-10-25 11:37 AM


I don't really feel like I have anything more to add, I just wanted Rob to know, I really like you--I consider you my friend, so maybe I am guilty of disproportionate emotional assuage  when I choose to believe that you posted your initial argument because your good heart compensated in proportion to exactly how much trouble this kid could be in. And should be in.

Not as an example, but because it is that serious a breach of not just the laws of the United States, but the value of our word--our trust, when we need to place a global value of trust in our sanity and fair dealings regarding our (and possibly, no, make that probably, the U.K.'s national security as well.)

If you want to make a case for some "nod of understanding" because of a mental ...condition, aberration, diagnosis--it really doesn't matter now. Which is why I brought up Thomas Szasz in the first place, btw. The anonymity of the internet, seemingly anonymity provides a false sense of security toward people who do seek to empower themselves through that very guise, and the implications of that--the profound consequences of what once would be akin to simple adolescent rebellion in the form of that empowerment is indeed, when it branches out to a potential end-of-the-world scenario, is, I grant you, something all nations should now--should have always--been deemed as that certain something sacred.

The ramifications of this do indeed spin my head, but surely Rob, my friend, you can't expect gratitude from the United States for what we can only hope is an anomaly of a ...prank? Or a 'simple misstep' of someone trying to breach the sacred trust of the entire world, on one boy's moment of misguided curiosity? (Forgive my  misspellings, I have a live active virus in my brain, and if that virus enabled me to somehow have new avenues opened in my head that enabled me to breach national security, I should face the consequences accordingly.)

Would you hold the United States culpable if there had been, what would have been, an completely plausible reaction to that breach of security?

Begin another thread, if you feel you must, regarding extradiction, and the laborious intent of all that entails internationally.

The U.S. faces such decisions within our own government over lesser matters quite regularly as we grant each State rights of governing, and those rights quite often conflict with our Federal Constitution. We defer to the Supreme Court on these matters, but as it stands right now, there is no reliable global supreme court.

I suggest you start another thread, or several other threads, since there are many implications involved in this one that would allow you to rant, rave, flame and complain, or even philosophize regarding the delicacies of mental competency, etc.

But surely, my friend, and I do call you my friend, you must realize that such a breach of security in these tumultuous times is moral treason against the entire world.

I sigh. Surely you do understand that, right?

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

41 posted 2012-10-25 12:52 PM


quote:
  quote:
________________________________________
The nub of this interesting debate for me, has however been the central question of whether May was right to damage US/UK relations in pursuit of some morally right cause.
________________________________________

The world needs people who are willing to do what's right rather than what is expedient. I don't, however, believe this is one of those times. Protecting the innocent is admirable and, yes, perhaps morally right (not an argument that usually interests me much). Shielding the guilty, however, is a mistake.

The articles I've read have said that McKinnon will almost certainly NOT be charged under UK law because of lack of evidence. Since the alleged crime essentially took place on US soil, it makes perfect sense that's where the evidence would be. I honestly don't know if your courts have subpoena powers sufficient to the case.


Actually, I don’t view this as May either shielding the guilty or protecting the innocent.  Like I say, I don’t think this is what this has been about.   After all, as we have both agreed, we do not know if he is guilty or innocent at this stage.  No, the moral judgement she had to make was simply whether he would be treated “fairly” (a word I admit is slippery) in the US;  or, more correctly, whether it was morally right to send him to a place where by mid-October, as sizeable proportion of the UK had decided he would be treated unfairly.

As to whether her motives were politically motivated as well, see below.

I’m a bit out of my depth in discussing the mechanics of the transfer of evidence and the power to co-opt witnesses as between different jurisdictions.  Commonsense would suggest however that, now the prospect of an extradition has faded, the US might be willing to be much more co-operative in providing evidence to our prosecuting authorities.  For this reason, might not the previous lack of evidence now be ameliorated?

The following is an extract from a recent Daily Mail article (not the most unbiased of papers!):

“The maximum sentence would be five years. On every one of the 97 occasions on which Mr McKinnon is alleged to have hacked into military computers, he was at his Wood Green flat, using only a modem and a primitive computer borrowed from his then girlfriend’s aunt.

US authorities allege he caused £500,000 damage to their computers, a sum he fiercely disputes.

In interviews in 2002, the Metropolitan Police clearly told Mr McKinnon there was sufficient evidence for a prosecution and he provided them with a detailed written confession.

Most of the evidence against him is held in the US. However, it is understood that British police are still confident they could bring a case against him.
Any prosecution would almost certainly require the co-operation of the US authorities, who are deeply unhappy at yesterday’s decision.

However, the alternative would be for them to refuse to provide evidence – unlikely considering how doggedly they have pursued the hacker over the past decade.

A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: ‘We will carefully consider Gary McKinnon’s case and come to a decision as soon as possible.’”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl  e-2218872/Gary-McKinnon-extradition-US-outrage-hacker-wont-American-authorities.html#ixzz2AKEIGmLQ  

quote:
  quote:
________________________________________
I still don�t think that certain elements of US administration, military and society, have grown up enough to be trusted with the sort of judgments to be made in a case like this.
________________________________________

Maturity has nothing to do with it, Moon. I already said I don't believe politicians should make judgments of guilt or innocence, and that's as true of our politicians as it is of yours. Both are too easily swayed by self-interest.

Both, in other words, are too inclined to do what is expedient, not what they believe to be right.

While it is up to our executive branch to pursue extradition, the judgment of McKinney would fall to the judicial branch. The fate of a judge in this country doesn't depend, one way or the other, on his verdicts. They are protected, by the system, from succumbing to their own self-interest. I won't pretend it's a perfect system, but it's a far cry better than letting politicians get involved. Yours or ours.


Of course you are absolutely right about politicians, but as I have already said, I don’t believe May IS making a judgement about his guilt or innocence.  She’s making a judgement about the forum in which his guilt or innocence will be judged.  

I suppose we can argue about whether she is competent even to do that!   You may well argue that even that decision will inevitably be politically motivated.  I probably won’t disagree with you, but unlike a politically motivated judgement about his guilt, which would certainly be a bad thing, I am not so sure that the same applies to a judgement about WHERE he should be tried.

You have repeatedly, and strongly, made the point that politicians are often (always?) motivated by self-interest.  That’s fine so far as it goes, but after all isn’t a politician’s self-interest almost always (and, some might argue, ideally) synonymous with the will of the majority of his or her constituents?  

In this case, perhaps May, sensing the feeling of the majority in the UK, and, perhaps with self-interest at heart, has indeed made the decision not to extradite based partly upon what she thinks most people feel about the chances of McKinnon getting a fair trial in the US are.

Is that a bad thing?

I don’t know.  It goes back I guess to my analogy about the rich and powerful family versus the downtrodden poor, and the perception that the US tends not to treat foreign suspects in a fair way.  Until Obama, precious little was done to correct that perception – in fact rather the reverse.  It is, though, a prevalent perception, and one which I suppose our politicians are bound to take notice of whether they actually believe it to be true or not.

In theory the judiciary in every liberal democracy should be independent of government.  In practice I think judges can be swayed, corrupted and be more or less nationalistic, just like anyone else.  I think judges in the US are perceived no differently to other US citizens by many foreigners: to be intensely proud (to a fault) of their country and fiercely defensive of the rightness of the US in all things!  Maybe that perception is wrong, probably it is simplistic as all generalisations inevitably are, but it sure isn’t helping in situations like the McKinnon case.    

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356

42 posted 2012-10-25 01:06 PM


Hi Karen   Yes of course you are my friend - I certainly hope so anyway

quote:
  I suggest you start another thread, or several other threads, since there are many implications involved in this one that would allow you to rant, rave, flame and complain, or even philosophize regarding the delicacies of mental competency, etc.

But surely, my friend, and I do call you my friend, you must realize that such a breach of security in these tumultuous times is moral treason against the entire world.

I sigh. Surely you do understand that, right?

Somewhat worryingly, no I don't recognise that description at all!  

It's worrying because I do not reagrd you as your average run of the mill bible bashing belt far right Palin loving republican (that was a joke btw ) It's worrying because even you Karen as a "normal" American seem to have no conception at all of the gulf between the way a lot of people in Europe view these circumstances and the way you view them.  I haven't got a lot of time to explore this right now, but it's the gulf that worrying to me, rather than who is right or wrong.

I have to admit though, your post surprised me!

On the mental health thing, like I said above to Ron, it's not a big deal, I hope I explained above what I was getting at.  I certainly don't propose to rant! lol

Peace xox

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Theresa blocks US request

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary