Alleged British Hacker Fears Guantanamo 661
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.'"
Bad news for him, I think. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
The real story (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Bah, seems biased..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Disproportionate (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I just don't understand you people (Score:1, Interesting)
"The unlawful detention of "enemy combatants" ": We follow the requirements of treaties regulating POWs, etc. These enemy combatants didn't follow the rules of war - hence no protection. Even the UN isn't complaining!
"Many of these detainees allege they have been subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In desperation, some detainees have attempted suicide. Others have gone on prolonged hunger strikes, being kept alive only through painful force feeding measures."
People can allege anything. I can allege North Korea is using microwaves beamed from a satellite to control my thoughts - that doesn't make it true. People attempt suicide for many reasons, including guilt. And if we didn't force feed people, we'd be accused of letting them starve to death.
Anything we do, or don't do, will get criticized, unless we let them all go and wait for another terrorist attack.
Re:I disagree with 'the bay' as much as anyone (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm no lawyer, but with the recent US history of their war on terror, why should the guys lawyer expect he will get a fair trial?
as an earlier post said (comment againts the man), if he did these crimes than he should do the time, but also if the US is going to hold people without trial in Guantanamo, then they should equally be not surprised that other countries won't believe they are going to get fair trials for their citizens.
as much as the lawyer is looking for any avenue of escape for his client, the US gave him the biggest piece of ammo with the usage of offshore prisons.
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Torture? You're just clueless. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Amnesty International (Score:2, Interesting)
The same Amnesty International that, even with a direct invitation to visit GITMO refused because they wouldn't be given unfettered access to all the prisoners but instead would only be permitted the same level of access as a visiting US Senator.
I don't know about you, but even if I couldn't get all the info, I would at least like to see the subject of my 'report' before condemning it; unless, of course, you already know what you are going to write and wouldn't want any facts to get in your way.
I'm guessing they left out the part about the younger prisoners that were held at GITMO who have said they missed it [guardian.co.uk] and while they didn't like being away from their families, much preferred their time at GITMO to their current living conditions back home. Something to do with the free education, good food, snorkeling on the pristine Cuban beaches, daily football, basketball and volleyball games with the guards.
And while I'm sure not everyone is treated to this level of kindness (it is a prison after all) the type of things Amnesty International now considers torture for the purposes of their reports on US detention centers has pretty much made the word meaningless.
If you want to see reports of inhumane treatement of detainees just look up some stories about the treatment of prisoners in pretty much any French jail.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:1, Interesting)
You really are so far from the reality in these countries that you even try to justify this stuff.
First, the most countries in the world has a mandatory military service. If you are a man, you go to the army or you get shot (well, punished severly at least). This is, by the people, just considered as just a few years of say 'school'. Something that has to get done. They have not chosen to be soldiers.
The countries are often very, very poor. Buying uniforms to their army is an expense, and if your army has not given one to you - are you to blame? All they gave you a Kalashnikov and told you to shoot the invaders, which you do since you think they are there to kill you and your children. And most destroy everything you believe in. Surprise, surprise, many of the men forced to act as soldiers have children, and all they want to do is to return to them.
Now, it happens that some of these fathers and sons get captured, and tortured indefinitely just because of this. This is so inhumane that every American should be disgusted. Has the lawyer culture grown so thick among you that every word (about uniform, is a war declared etc) has to be analyzed and you really believe it is ok to behave the way you do?
Guess you still don't understand why 9/11 happened, and why stuff like that will keep happening. Damn you (as a nation) deserved it. Ask yourself, how many of your civilians should you allow USA to kill before trying to do something back? Guess you already killed that many, several times over. Before 9/11. How many blows do you accept from the local bully before you at least try to hit back?
(sorry, just reading how some of you self-rightous USians behave made my blood boil)
Best sum-up so far! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
British Perspective (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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>
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, this was before the Geneva Conventions, but I wonder how it fits into your ideas.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow. And you're using this line to justify your support for Bush? Classic.