I really have to get this off my chest before I wind up in A&E or worse, because it is really starting to piss me off.
Over the last few months, I have read an ever increasing amount of bullshit in an ever increasing number of publications roaring in indignation at the Americans for their persistence in trying to get Gary McKinnon extradited to the States for hacking into military computers. You've got the right wing howling off in the Daily Mail , because it scores some good ol' nationalist Brownie points. The left wing have now taken up the baton, because of the whole 'aspergers' heart bleed not to mention the anti Bush, anti American angle and the fact 'liberals' detest the notion of a person going to jail for doing something wrong.
'Liberal' lefties really hate that one, which is why I will always simmer with rage at the very sight of a picture of Shami Chakrabarti, who seems to pass herself off as a lover of liberty, when in fact I know full well whose liberty she is more interested in protecting - the liberties of wankers and ne'er do wells.
My dear Mr Boatang summed the whole matter up perfectly in this recent piece - I can't possibly top this, and the article is well worth reading as dear old Boaty truly knows his stuff on the subject.
But what I need to nail home, further to the debate that generated on Mr B's recent piece, are a few points of logic. What I want to do is highlight all the areas that the pro-McKinnon/anti-extraditionists are using in their propaganda, and dismiss the logic that is being applied to each and every one of them.
So here goes.
Aspergers
My opponents in this field will argue that because McKinnon has 'aspergers', he should not be sent for trial in the US. The logic is that he could not have been fully cognisant of his actions and the gravity of his actions, and that because he was/is 'disabled' in some respect, it is unfair that he be made to stand trial in America for what he did.
This reason is also brought up whenever Mr McKinnon's current state of mind and stress levels are discussed.
My position on this is crystal clear - if his legal team wish to argue this, that's fine. But they should have to argue it in a court of law in the United States, because the current law dictates that he be sent to the country in which the crime took place. I.e. America.
If it were a burglary, it would have been no different. McKinnon essentially 'broke into', 'trespassed' and caused damage to property in that country. He may as well have been over there at the time.
What cannot be tolerated is the totally absurd notion that because a doctor says he has 'x' condition (a relatively recent diagnosis I would add) that means all is well and he should not be held to account at law.
Imagine if everyone started doing that? "Hello, my name is Pablo and I recently traveled to the UK from my home country of Portugal in order to rape a few university students. It's OK, though, I won't be standing trial in England for my crimes because my Doc back in Lisbon has a note to say I have a high libido and a bit of depression. Sorry about that. Send them my love, won't you?"
It's bollocks. This is what courts of law are for, you fucking imbeciles. You can't jostle your way out of justice, because you aren't well. It's the old 'sick note' getting out of gym class excuse, and I cannot believe serious minded people are using this ruse.
Have people forgotten what the Rule of Law is all about these days, or are people that emotionally driven and fucking stupid?
The 'aspergers' thing is something that must be tested in court. That court must be in the States. Why? Because the law fucking says so.
Get over it you simpering jerk offs.
Which leads me onto...
The Extradition Treaty is unfair
Some people, like Henry Porter of the Guardian (see the link above under 'the left wing'), think the law is unfair and inherently biased against the Brits. OK. This may well be so. But why was there no fuss about all this when the law came onto effect in January of 2004? Well, it's obvious. A case has arisen which throws it all into stark relief.
The trouble is, laws aren't there to be retrospectively applied, twisted and canceled at will, just because one party or another has decided it isn't much good after all.
The proper place to raise this is via the political and legislative process. In other words, there needs to be lobbying of ministers for a push in a change in the law. This is awkward, as it will undoubtedly involve the Americans who probably would not be overawed at the suggestion of a revision in the law.
Either way, you can argue the toss over the fairness of the law all day, the fact is, the Extradition Treaty is fucking law, and it's one that is engaged by the shenanigans of Mr McKinnon. It is very simple - a law exists. It must be applied. If people want it changed, that's something that the future, not the past, must accommodate.
It's a bit like taking an old jumper back to the shop without a receipt and asking for your money back. This one has more fucking holes in it than a block of Switzerland's finest. McKinnon (who I may shortly name 'McClownan for the sheer idiocy of his behaviour) did not play Tetris with the Pentagon Payroll for a few fucking hours.
He caused some serious fucked up shit over there, as explained by Mr Boatang on his recent genius comment.
The Americans have put a lot of thought into Gary McKinnon's prison cell wall designBloody Americans! Bloody politicians!
Yeah, yeah, fucking yeah. This is so bloody predictable it hurts. Just because politicians are selfish, short sighted shits and the Americans are a bit Gung Ho, does not mean that the Treaty is null and void and McKinnon should remain in Britain. Sorry about that.
To look at this point with more clarity, let us look closer at some of Henry Porter's words in his piece:
"(there is a) suspicion that the US authorities waited to apply for McKinnon's extradition under the new law, which came into operation in January 2004. The delay is held by many to have been a deliberate strategy followed by the Bush administration. To what degree the British connived in this delay is a matter of speculation but given the relationship between the Bush and Blair governments, now being revealed in the Chilcot inquiry, informal co-operation to make sure the Americans got their man cannot be ruled out"
I'm glad he used that word before I did. 'Speculation'. I am also glad he discredited his ludicrous position by linking the McKinnon case with Blair's alleged 'signing the Iraq war in blood with Bush in secret pact' matter. Because this makes it all clear, doesn't it. 'Politicians in dodgy horsetrading, 'real-politik' sneaky behind the scenes deal shocker! Therefore all actions of politicians must be inherently bent and corrupt.
But, even if we accept this assertion as fact, and that the British went along with American delaying tactics so that McKinnon was ensnared by the new law; it is still tough titty! Delaying tactics like this are not unusual in the legal arena. And linking an alleged delay with a determination to nab a particular person for whatever reason appears to me to be beyond proof.
Even if it could be proven, would that seriously mean that the Treaty is illegal, or void, or unenforceable? I seriously doubt it. You could have a thousand Johnnie Cochranes in your legal team, and I would lay odds of a million to one on the chances of getting the Treaty revoked on this basis.
You can yell about how unfair it all is, and how it all stinks, and it still does not detract for one moment from the fact that a law stands and it is there to be enforced.
McKinnon lost his appeal. The Home Secretary came out on the 27 November 2009 and said that the extradition must go ahead, because extradition is not incompatible with his human rights. McKinnon's team are putting in for a Judicial Review as I type, but I am convinced that the government would have stopped it all going ahead...if they were able. They are not able, because there is a Treaty in place and there is no way round it.
Hindsight is a marvelous thing, is it not?
Try him in Britain, not America!
Why? Extradition Treaties (and there are many of these things, look it up) are there for a fucking reason. I severely doubt that there would be so much uproar if it were a foreign person accused of committing a similar or even a very different crime from abroad against British property or interests.
The real reason people are upset is as I have described at the beginning of this piece. It's either because he is British (and therefore the argument lacks logic or merit and consistency) or it is because America is full of Americans and they are all right wing and nasty and have harsh jail terms. Again, illogical and ridiculous.
He didn't do that much 'arm, poor bugger and look at what the bankers have got away with!
This is fast becoming the modern day equivalent to Godwins Law. These lazy, inarticulate, dull, dim witted, left wing, sneering and childish moral equivalents are beyond boring. Who has said anything about holy, upstanding bankers? Just because some bankers have committed terrible misdeeds and have got away with lots of things, does not mean it is OK to let every other wrongdoer off the hook.
Henry Porter in the Guardian voices just such a view in his fatuous article:
"How much damage did McKinnon do in pursuit of evidence about UFOs? The Americans say it is equal to $500,000. It is perhaps worth comparing this amount with the harm done to the British and other economies by greedy and irresponsible American bankers. I don't see many of them being shipped out for prosecution."
This is text book Marxoid bullshit. I haven't heard anything this fucking inane since Tariq Ali last popped up on telly.
Just because you think and say it is about UFO's, does not mean that at law that is indisputable fact. That is why we have fucking laws, and trials, and judges, and juries and treaties you cock. To test evidence.
We are then sold the line that the damage done was small beer and of little consequence, again, as though the 'value' of the damage has much to do with it. Furthermore, the New Godwins Law is invoked, and we are asked to consider why bankers are not being shipped out for prosecution.
Firstly, I think the comment about the damage caused is insulting and embarrassing. The US will have their reasons for pursuing this case besides the money aspect. I should imagine there is a massive public interest factor involved in taking this case on - McKinnon is not the only fucking hacker out there, after all.
Secondly, bankers made bad decisions and poor investments because people, like you and me, freely banked our money with them. Securitisation went sour, but it was something that was happening years before the Sub Prime crisis hit. In other words, yes many bankers are bastards, but we let them get away with it and essentially, we all have a hand in how it all worked out.
Whether you are American or British, an American investing in Britain or a Briton investing in America, it's all part of the same picture in our globalised economy. Some American bankers were bad, and so were British ones. People had the choice before the credit crunch on who they banked with. Many claim ignorance of the workings of international banking and sub prime.
The trouble is, in law, whether in the case of McKinnon or the case of every day punters investing their loot with the bankers, ignorance is no defence.
All of the arguments posited by those against McKinnon's extradition are illogical and stupid. They are riven with non sequiturs and emotional bias. You can be against a law, but still understand its enforceability and legitimacy. You can want a law changed, but realise that any current law or treaty stands. You can wish a law never existed, but know that the clock cannot be turned back. You can try and get a law changed, but know that what has been committed is done and must be addressed by the appropriate law.
There is not a single valid argument against McKinnon's extradition. None that I have read or heard yet, at any rate.
29 comments:
"McClownan"
On behalf of all clowns everywhere, can I just say that this is extremely insulting and you can just fuck right off.
I thought it had quite a good ring to it, myself.
Spot on Mr D....he is accused of breaking the law big time...so stand trial and defend yourself in court....he should of just minded his own business the idiot..
er! whats all that shit above..is it the commies!
OK, motherfucker, you asked for it.
Cock sucking bitches.
Them damn commies again Mr D....OY PUTIN..FUCK OFF YOU CUNT!!..GO SHOOT SOME SLEEPING BEARS YOU TOSSER!!!
Vould you like to buy a GPS receiver, Comrade Demetriou? Is made in Russia!
You quite rightly address the retroactive application of the Treaty. It was ratified in 2003, yet McKinnon carried out the damage the year before. How do you explain that? You attempt to by employing this little nugget- "The trouble is, laws aren't there to be retrospectively applied"- is that right? Well done in defeating your own argument. You're clearly smart enough to thereafter neglect further comment on that point.
Much of the debate on this page centres on what is agreeable in terms of Libertarian theory. I'm working on the assumption this is the case here. How do you spin the fact that there are two States here exercising retrospective powers in order to prosecute a citizen in a manner that was unavailable to said States at the time of the commission? And to employ some of Mr B's logic in creating wild scenarios which actually has little relevance to the one we're discussing: What if Richardo dropped some litter on a street in Germany. He then returns to Britain. Months later the UK and German Governments enter in to a horribly wide-ranging climate-change treaty which holds that dropping litter is an offence to which the State's remedy is to impose a maximum sentance of 10 years. This tariff is obviously discretionary. Richardo is to be extradited because the provisions of this treaty have been retroactively applied. He is now facing a potential 10 years in a German prison. Is this right?? In light of this scenario- I declare myself the winner.
Finally- “You can be against a law, but still understand its enforceability and legitimacy”. Yes, you can, you’re quite right. But you can also be in favour of a law which contravenes every basic Liberal right in the book, although this is probably not advisable.
Mimnor issue there Knolls,
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/109_09/
The CPS ceded jurisdiction of the case to the States in 2002. The decision on extradition is therefore pior to the treaty being agreed and the current arguments are whether this decision stands in light of both the new treaty and the various appeal evidence.
In addition, you simply fail to see the validity of the analogies I have put forward, your case simply doesn't work. I suggest you look up how extradition actually works and the crimes it applies to and the punishments that cannot be permitted upon re-location.
My analogies were not intended to be analogous to my point (excuse that clumsiness) they were simply employed as a vehicle through which I could show that creating a daft scenario does one's argument few favours and rarely get to the heart of the point. Perhaps after claiming that I won I should have included one of these - (!).
We appear to be at loggerheads here over different, non-conflicting positions. Regardless of whether or not the Crown has ceded jurisdiction, I argue here that the application of the treaty is unjust, arbitrary, and disproportionate, where the fact he suffers from Asberger’s should count as a mitigating factor for his behaviour, regardless of the fact he was only recently diagnosed. I find it difficult to believe that justice would fail be done in the United Kingdom if his case were to be heard here. If, on the other hand, he gets sent to the States then I struggle to assure myself that justice would similarly be done. I certainly wouldn't call this an over-emotional reaction.
Also- your link doesn't work.
Oh, ok it's this http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/109_09/
Anyways.
To break it right down, I would that we all agree that the treaty is one sided, however our point is two fold on this issue. First is taht the treaty is signed and under its terms the hands are tied. Second, that even without the treaty the extradition would almost certainly have gone ahead anyway.
His Aspergers may well be a mitigating factor, however that is for a court of law to judge. Someone with severe learning difficulties may well be punished ina different way, however he would still have to stand trail (int he vast amount of cases) and prove this as a factor mitigating his control over his actions.
Also, I simply don't beleive that McKinnon didn't know exactly what he was doing. He did. Hacking from London to Washington is no different to him getting on a plane and breaking in to smash up the server.
HIs family and his legal team are employing vast amounts of hyperbole to get him to stand trail here, something the CPS refused 7 years ago for very sound legal reasons.
Saunders, Biggs & Megrahi showed the "I'm not well" excuse can work (if there are powerful vested interests behind it), but it corrupts the rule of law. The asparagus defence is a rather lightweight attempt - or don't they know how to cope with it in the USA?
Errr, isn't the real point here that Mr Spazzo did a bad thing here? A crime; regardless of extradition protocol???
Surely fucking about with another nation's defense systems was a crimepre-2002...
CJH
Tee hee hee... I am VERY tempted to find out what 'chiliporno' is.
B&D, if you delete the Russian spam link above then my comment is going to look a bit odd.
CJH
Anon @ 19.26- No-one here has challenged the fact that "Spazzo" committed a serious crime. This debate here centred on the validity of the law and treaty he is to be extradited under. You’d struggle to even find a mad leftie who would refute this.
Ed P @ 19.25- re Megrahi- the man should never have been in jail in the first place. His conviction was unsafe and was not beyond reasonable doubt. I don't quite know what you're getting at in equating the Megrahi situation with that of McKinnon's.
Boaty- "First is taht the treaty is signed and under its terms the hands are tied."- Whether or not you believe this depends on how far you think Parliamentary Supremacy is capable of going, as in theory Parliament could move to reform this treaty. Based on the bollocking Al Johnston suffered in the Commons yesterday any attempt to remedy the treaty may well succeed.
Admittedly, this debate could be academic- I’m still working on the belief that if it gets to the European Court of Human Rights, they’ll allow the appeal and will rule that he must be tried in the United Kingdom.
P.S. What’s with the Ruskie adverts???
"Ed P @ 19.25- re Megrahi- the man should never have been in jail in the first place. His conviction was unsafe and was not beyond reasonable doubt."
I'll be the judge of that.
CJH
Will you really? Perhaps you would be good enough to elaborate?
No, I shant.
Any particular reason you think you know it all?
CJH
No? Well, thanks for your input.
Well, there are several reasons, but in light of your evasiveness I don't really feel like explaining them.
Bwok bwok bwok
CJH
xxx
Anon 18.21.
Are you the cunt that keeps e mailing me with cock enlargement advice?
Who the fuck told you?
I have got to admit that, as time has gone on my opinion in this case has changed. At first it did seem to ring true that he seemed to be bumbling, slightly retarded pawn in a huge diplomatic game. However, as time has gone on, it has become more and more apparent that he was a) acting with malicious intent and b) not nearly as much of a special needs case as his mother and other advocates of his are making out. True, he is clearly in the category of dribbling fucktard, but this is down to pure idiocy rather than mental illness. Ironically, you could argue that only a total spastic would try and fuck with the US military, but I am sure that the same could be said of a complete douche, a major fuckwit or a silly cunt, none of which will qualify you for clemency in the face of justice. Whilst I agree that the extradition treaty with the US is undoubtedly stacked in favour of our former colony, we should be having a debate framed in far more general terms than one which considers alone the case of this particular goof. IMHO he should do his time graciously and then with similar good grace take the job that he will inevitably be offered at the end of the process - retard or not he is clearly a good hacker and his services will no doubt be greatly valued. Unless of course he is as ill as everyone is making out in which case he should do his time a dribbling mess, and then spill out of his cell straight onto the psych ward where he can live out his days in a pleasant chemical haze with as much mashed banana as he can eat...
i didn't get much beyond this point:
'This is awkward, as it will undoubtedly involve the Americans who probably would not be overawed at the suggestion of a revision in the law.'
so the americans now dictate our law ? are we so up their arses and at the same time are rabidly anti eu and anti eu law taking over the uk ? you want your bread buttered on both sides ?
No. The Americans don't dictate our laws, and that wasn't my point.
It is an extradition TREATY. Which by definition means it is something that is worked out by both sides in tandem. It is a form of law that is agreed upon by both sides. Well, it is if it is to be remotely workable or reciprocal.
I hoped that concept was obvious.
jd , i really don't think it is that obvious. yes that might've been your point but ive got the impression they make laws as and when it suits and i do get the impression some countries like to kiss americas backside to the point of delivering their citizens there for punishment when america decides it's been offended or it's laws has/have been broken. regardless of whether the activity is actually illegal or not in the persons own country. and i don't see it working the other way around.
on a more personal level i don't think garry mckinnon should be extradited, i think he could quite easily go to trial here and serve, if any sentence, here.
Наш сайт - самый легкий и быстрый способ найти партнера, имеющего схожие с вашими сексуальные предпочтения!
http://leporno.eu
Anon 01:45, Do you also think that if he had murdered someone in America he should go on trail and serve his sentence in the UK?
kevin, i think so yes, the usa has the death sentence for murder which i don't agree with.
That last comment says it all. 'I don't agree with this, so it shouldn't happen'.
Sorry to inform you of this, but that's not how law works.
Уважаемые читатели. С Рождеством христовым хочется вас поздравить. Админу сайта отдельное пожелание-побольше читателей на блоге, креативных интересных статей и всего всего всего :)
Post a Comment