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.'"
I disagree with 'the bay' as much as anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I disagree with 'the bay' as much as anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I disagree with 'the bay' as much as anyone (Score:2)
Re:I disagree with 'the bay' as much as anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with parent completely. I mean, whether or not you agree with the US's tendencies to be (overly) vengeful, you're still an idiot to ignore those tendencies when deciding whether or not to 'piss them off', no? This holds true for other governments, terrorists, etc. as well. Like the US or not you're still an idiot to intentionally piss them off. Now, don't tell me the guy didn't think this would upset those responsible for the US gov. networks that he allegedly hacked. Please! What did he expect?
If you poke a grizly bear in the ribs with a stick is it a fair response for the bear to tear your head off? No, that's not fitting to the offense at all, but if you know the bear will react that way and you poke the bear in the ribs anyway... that's just stupid. The US enjoys power driven at least in part by fear. If they overlook offenses against them that fear goes away. Do you think the US is going to send that message and give up that power? No, they like being feared and the power that goes with it.
Re:I disagree with 'the bay' as much as anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's not fitting to the offense at all, but if you know the bear will react that way and you poke the bear in the ribs anyway... that's just stupid. The US enjoys power driven at least in part by fear. If they overlook offenses against them that fear goes away. Do you think the US is going to send that message and give up that power? No, they like being feared and the power that goes with it.
So the important question is, "what should the UK do?" Right now the UK is standing between the bear and the man. Knowing that the Bear might kill the man, and being responsible for his welfare as one of their citizens should they give him to the US? I think they absolutely should not. Until the US adopts reasonable human rights laws in compliance with international agreements why risk handing him over? Just convict him in the UK. If the US wants any extraditions to go forward in the future when there is any doubt about US laws and behaviors then they can fix the bloody problem. Why encourage a country to act like an rabid animal? The UK should seriously consider whether or not they should hand him over. If they do, it should be with guarantees that he will be treated in accord with accepted international humans rights agreements as monitored by an independent third party.
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.
Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
At least he gets a trial... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:2)
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:2)
But they should merit treatment according to the Geneva convention, basic human rights and all that jazz.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't say "they are neither, so we can treat them how we like". They are either POWs or criminals, and should be treated as such.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes they are mere criminals, just as every terrorist was since, pretty much forever, like say when somoene tried to set the Colliseum on fire in Ancient Rome.
This whole idiotic American mindset of "The Commies are coming! Throw away all laws! The Commies are coming! Give up all your rights! The Comm... The Terrorists are coming! ..." is truly infuriorating. Only piss-covered coward idiots, or assholes hell-bent on using those idiot's animalistic fear to get in power, would engage in such "thought".
in addition, full criminal trial protections could compromise investigations and interventions needed to stop future terrorist attacks
Total bullshit. Terrorist attacks can happen everywhere, all the time, anytime, nearly any public place, and there is nothing you, or the DHS, can do about it, short of locking the whole population up, or establishing a 24/7 surveilance of all citizens. Any idiot can get a can of gasoline and a spray gun and march into a mall setting people on fire. Any idiot can rent a truck and drive into a park running hunderds of people over before he can be stopped. Any idiot can get a truck, load it with rocks and slam into an Amtrack train. And so on, ad infinitum! Terrorism is a tactic and there is no way one can win a "war" on a tactic!
And the only reason to claim that "9/11 changed everything" (besides spoiled brats, otherwise known as Americans, believing that the whole universe revolves around their asses and that when terrorism happens everywhere else, that's just sad but normal, but when it happens in the US its the end of the world and all rules have to be thrown out) is to deprive poeples of their rights under a pretense of protecting them from some bogeymen. That is the very same reason Stalin and Hitler have used on their countrymen!
The way to fight terror is courage and cosistency, demonstrating to the terrorists that they cannot affect one's ideals and principles, no matter what they do. But what does Al-Queda get for the cost of 19 pairs of box cutters? Wholesale abandonment of the supposedly most cherished American principles of "habeas corpus", freedom of the press, unreasonable searches, personal liberties and the like in favour of fascist surveilance and arbitrary imprisonment in a Gulag. Osama must be laughing his ass off at such a spineless attitude.
Or do you want to be in the next September 11?
You are far far far more likely to die in a car accident (47,000 deaths a year in the US) then anything like 9/11, which by the way, took 10 years of planning, culminating in the apex of Al-Queda's technology: the $1.25 boxcutters, and that was before your stong, steely eyed, swaggering "protectors" were around to "protect" you from these boogeymen.
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.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no "meme" to shoot down. Under the Geneva conventions you are either a combatant (in which case you are entitled to a POW status) or a civilian (in which case the occupying power has another set of obligations towards you). There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant". That is an invention of the Bush administration and indeed blatantly in violations of the conventions. Under the Conventions, a non-uniformed individual who does not qualify as a combatant, and who is conducting combat operations is simply a civilian criminal to be dealt with using civilian court system.
It is that simple.
There is no such thing as an "unlawful" combatant, who has no rights whatsoever and who is to be shipped to a Gulag. The whole idea is a pathetic admission on the part of the US that it is no longer even pretending to uphold its so-called "ideals" and is simply now engaged in "might is right" approach to building a hegemony.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, in this case, I don't think anyone is suggesting that this hacker was participating in a war against the U.S. government. If he's extradited, he'll get a trial and probably go to prison if he's convicted, but he's not going to end up in Guantanamo.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:5, Informative)
No you are only not entitled to being a protected person, who is granted additional rights to a mere civilian.
So if you're a combatant, but you don't follow the laws and customs of war or you don't identify yourself as the enemy, then you don't get Geneva protection.
Which again, makes you a mere civilian, or more specifically, a civilian criminal.
That's what "unlawful combatants" are.
See above. That would make them criminals to be tried in a civilian court, and afforded all the same rights as any other civilian accused of a crime.
They're people who are participating in an armed conflict who aren't eligible for Geneva protection because of how they are conducting their combat operations.
That only removes their "protected persons" status, not their rights as civilians.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:3, Insightful)
Err, what? How would you know a "spy"? "Hey! That there man, he is a spy! I say so! I saw him spy! I swear!" followed by summary execution. Right? If you are going that route, might as well forget about that whole Justice System thing and start shooting people you don't like.
By
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Enemy" and "unlawful" are worlds apart. An enemy combatant is covered by the Thrid Geneva Convention and entitled to a POW status. Also the fact that the US Supreme Court rules itself above any international agreements and laws is not exactly working in US' favour here. The US governments have commited a great number of violations of such laws over the years, and this is precisely one of the reasons why no one takes their "commitment" to law outside of its borders seriously. And even inside, as the internment of the Japanese Americans during WWII clearly indicates. Simply put, the USs attitude towards the Geneva Conventions, Nuclear Nonpoliferation and other treaties is that these laws apply to everyone else but not to the USA, who is entitled to do whatever it pleases and call it "legal".
For what its worth, every person who is brought to gitmo has an opportunity to challenge the factual basis for their labeling as an enemy combatant before a tribunal.
No they don't, the process appears to be arbitrary, probably due to the fact that next to no evidence exists against most of those captured, other then hearsay or unreliable accusations obtained via bribery and the like.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:2)
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile this guy spends a year or so in a camp in Afganistan, survive a train ride of hell (where many die), only to be shipped off to gitmo for 9 months to live in a cage and only then being released back to his country never once being charged of anything or going to trial.
Of course hes the lucky one. There was another reported incident of a person being held for two years. When returning home to find because no one knew where he was he had no job, no home and his family were poor.
And there have been over 200 such people let go from that camp and there are still many more in that camp under the same conditions not to mention children.
But as Bush says "They are there because they are bad people". We also won't have to worry when they finally get approval for the death chamber because any mistakes can be removed.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that the people held at Guantanamo Bay weren't simply captured on "the field of battle". According to information released under court order last month, fewer than half of the detainees were actually captured in battle against US forces. The majority were turned over by Pakistan, often for a cash bounty.
Few of these "combatants" are even accused of having fought; most simply lived in a house or worked for a charity associated with the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. And you would propose that we have the right to indefinitely detain these people, held only on the grounds of a suspicion, without a fair trial? What, again, are these freedoms and principles that we are fighting so hard to defend in this "war on terror"?
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:3, Informative)
You can't be this [latimes.com] dumb [bbc.net.uk]. Learn to use Google.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who can't see this is an idiot.
Anyone who refuses to see/acknowledge this is evil.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:5, Insightful)
No they aren't. If they were prisoners of war, then the Geneva Convention would apply. If they were prisoners of war, they would have been released once the war ended (are we still at war with Afghanistan? Didn't think so...)
They're 'unlawful combatants', a new classification invented by the Americans which is roughly synonymous with 'unpersons'.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:5, Insightful)
You make a dangerous assumption.. the assumption that if they are being held then they are guilty. Trials exist for a reason.
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:3, Insightful)
How, exactly, are you 'at war' with Al Qaeda? It is not a country, it is a (very small) group of individual terrorists. In the UK, we were 'at war' with the IRA in much the same way for decades. While I was growing up there was a report on the news of a terrorist bombing every few weeks. There were also reports of trials being given to captured terrorists.
We did not start the hostilities
Oh, yes. Someone else invaded Afghanistan and Iraq without internat
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:At least he gets a trial... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they're not soldiers, then they're criminals. Assault With A Deadly Weapon. Manslaughter. Attempted Murder. Making an Affray. Riot. Conspiracy to Cause Explosions. Destruction of Property. Hell, throw in some violations of the civil aviation code while you're at it. There are plenty of things they're guilty of, if what they did w
Interesting Lawyerly Quote (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting Lawyerly Quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Except in here, the "victim" is the most powerful state in the worl, with the worst information security in the world. Did you recall that a few days ago an airport had to be shut down because they didn't patch their WINDOWS systems correctly and got infected?
Or how about the FBI not having enough e-mail accounts? I could compare this hacker incident with a spy or thief entering a fortress thru the backdoor by simply turning the knob.
Helpless Joe Users running w
Re:Interesting Lawyerly Quote (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is perfectly fine in English law, to a certain degree.
Not Guantanamo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not Guantanamo (Score:2)
Plead insanity (Score:4, Funny)
Uh... OK. He should plead insanity.
Overkill (Score:2)
This guy was a hacker, not some Jihadist killing people or flying planes into buildings. Throw him in a regular prison and move on.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re:Overkill (Score:2)
Basically, this is simply a sleazy lawyer red herring.
Apparently you bought into it.
Extradition (Score:5, Insightful)
Us Brits consider the idea of being extradited to the USA's rape prisons, Gitmo or no Gitmo, to be about on a level as you Yanks regard being extradited to an Iranian prison.
Isn't there something about "cruel and unusual punishment" in your constitution? And the sad thing is that this story is likely to get you guys making rape jokes instead of realising how shitty your country has become. You were once a great nation and you are throwing it all away.
And no, I have no sympathy for this stupid script kiddy kook. But, as Dostoyevsky once wrote, "the degree of civilisation in a society can be judged by entering its prisons".
Bah, seems biased..... (Score:3, Interesting)
You're kidding me (Score:2)
He asked for it. (Score:2)
I've never been to the Caribbean... (Score:3, Funny)
I have been to London, where I enjoyed the five or six minutes of sunshine each morning before rolling right into the remaining daylight hours of grey skies, grey ground, and grey air, begging and hoping for merciful sunset so you could see some color from the electric lights.
Shouldn't he be grateful?
Updated Chewbacca Defense (Score:4, Funny)
Sleazy Lawyer: "They have a grudge against my client and want to hold him indefinately."
USG: "We want to try him for the crimes he committed."
SL: "They want to put him Gitmo forever without a trail!"
USG: "Johnnie Cochran called. He wants his defense stragety back."
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:Disproportionate (Score:3, Insightful)
We seemed to have adopted the methods of our former adversary (ship "enemies of the state" off to the gulag), so what you're suggesting doesn't sound all that implausible.
Faith? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mark Summers, representing the US government, said there was no precedent to suggest the US would breach its promises, and the court should take on "faith" the undertaking.
but I don't see anywhere where they 'promise' to try him in federal court - they have given him 'assurances' but no 'guarantee'. Sorry, as soon as somebody says "take my word for it but I won't write it down", you know damb well they have no intention of keeping their precious word.
He shouldn't fear Guantanamo (Score:5, Insightful)
At Guantanamo, the prisoners don't have any rights to a trial or access to the American Justice system -- until the US Supreme Court decides that it is not Constitutional for the Executive branch to accuse, convict and execute the sentence on a person with no trial. I figure he'd be there for about 20 years with no trial until this Supreme Court wakes up.
What he ought to fear is an overseas detention compound [washingtonpost.com] as this is where one British releasee suffered torture, not at Gitmo.
While I agree this is a ploy by his lawyer to try this case in the Court of Public Opinion (at least in England where Guantanamo is not very popular), the US apparently doesn't torture prisoners there. They torture them elsewhere because Guantanamo is under too much public scrutiny
Don't send the wrong message (Score:3, Insightful)
"The US said Mr McKinnon had assurances he would be tried in a federal court."
"But defence lawyers said his human rights could be breached if he was sent to the US."
And the reason for their thinking: "Defence lawyer Edmund Lawson said the US Embassy in London had provided an 'unsigned and anonymous' diplomatic note and said Mr McKinnon was still 'vulnerable' to such an order."
Given the fact that this guy is a national security threat, he should be lucky to get tried in court and NOT be going straight to Guantanamo. What he thinks he did is irrelevant. How does he know someone wasn't piggybacking on him? How do we know that he didn't give information to anyone else? I agree that Guantanamo might be a bit extreme if the guy had hacked in and defaced the IRS site or a state information portal. But the second you get into military (TFA says he hacked into Naval weapon station Earle) all bets are off. If he were to get off easy the message will be sent to our enemy: "Hack all you want and if you're caught just claim you were showing vulnerabilities and looking for UFO information".
His lawyers would do well to just try to get in writing that he'll get a court trial - they're not going to stop him from being sent to the US.
Re:Don't send the wrong message (Score:4, Insightful)
"Lucky?" Funny... I thought that fundamental human rights were supposed to be accorded to all humans, not just the ones who aren't suspected of being a national security threat... I know it doesn't work that way anymore, but does that mean we should talk about it like somebody shouldn't be tried before being punished? Cause I still think that a fair trial is an ideal worth shooting for...
If he were to get off easy the message will be sent to our enemy...
So, screw whether he's actually guilty, we will punish him severely to make an example of him to our enemies. Or wait, maybe we should just punish people who were actually proven guilty in court, and punish them by law, according to the severity of their crime, rather than to make them an example? You know, treat them like actual human beings instead of messages to the rest of the world about our superiority.
0% Chance of McKinnon ending up in Guantanamo (Score:4, Insightful)
(1) He is not a member of Al Qaeda.
(2) He has never been a member of Al Qaeda.
(3) He has not provided material support to Al Qaeda.
(4) He was not captured on a battlefield.
(5) He has not committed an act of war against the United States.
(**6**) HE IS NOT AN ILLEGAL COMBATANT (an individual who has engaged in acts of war against the United States and violated the laws of war).
To be held in Guantanamo, an individual MUST be an illegal combatant (violated the laws of war). There is no chance McKinnon falls under this category.
Furthermore, the US government has explicitly stipulated that he will be tried under civilian courts.
McKinnon's lawyers are simply doing their job and advancing any claim against extradition they can think of, but the argument is completely invalid.
Re:0% Chance of McKinnon ending up in Guantanamo (Score:5, Insightful)
(1)There is no proof most people in Guantanamo are members of Al Qaeda.
(2)There is no proof most people in Guantanamo were ever members of Al Qaeda
(3)There is no proof most people in Guantanamo provided material support to Al Qaeda
(4)There is proof that most people in Guantanamo were not captured on a battlefield
(5)There is no proof most people in Guantanamo committed acts of war against the US
(6)The term 'illegal combatant' is illegitimate. People are either soldiers, or civilians. A civilian attempting to harm or kill people is breaking the law and should be tried by a civilian court.
To be held in Guantanamo, an individual MUST be declared an illegal combatant.
Please, try looking at Guantanamo Bay from an objective perspective.
I will agree entirely with your final statement - his lawyers are attempting to keep him out of the US, by any legal means necessary, and scare stories about Guantanamo are one of those means. And the argument is entirely invalid, albeit only because British citizens in Guantanamo get out again pretty sharpish on account of UK Government pressure - the US would rather stick this guy in jail for a few years.
Alleged British Hacker (Score:3, Insightful)
Alleged British hacker? This is outrageous. No person should be punished until they have been proven to be British beyond a reasonable doubt.
If they wanted him in GTMO, he'd be there already (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US & UK goverments had decided this guy was going to GTMO, he would not be in the custody of the police and he would not be in court.
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Jail time - fair enough. Guantanamo Bay, perhaps not...
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:3)
Jail time - fair enough. Guantanamo Bay, perhaps not...
Well, he is lucky enough to live in a country that allows you to have legal representation, due process, and all that jazz.
This would be a non story if he were in the US. Few people hear about who gets detained at Guantanamo. Fortunately, Guantanamo is small, so you have to be of special interest to get an invitati
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:3, Informative)
He obviously hopes for a lighter sentence from a UK trial.
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting shipped off sans due process to an offshore prison camp for an indeterminate sentence for something you weren't convicted of... that's something else entirely.
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's highly unlikely he's going to Guantanamo and against the interests of the US government if they were to change their tune post extradition.
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... the definition of a secret court is one that no one knows about, so it's safe to say that no, no one does. That's the point.
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there were the 38 detainess who were released in March 2005 because the US government decided that they were not enemy combatants. None of these people received compensation for unjust imprisonment, and none of them have ever been told why they were arrested.
Or how about "Adel" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Or how about the five Chinese detainees who have been found not to be enemy combatants, but are still sitting in Guantanamo? http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.ht
The United States has chosen to put those people into jail rather than execute them. That is a favor that the US is doing out of the kindness of its heart. Your welcome.
"Kindness of its heart"? Fuck off. Guantanamo is a fucking embarassment to the USA, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to defend it.
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Battlefield? What battlefield? There is no battlefield, because Congress has not declared war!. Contrary to what he (and, sadly, most of the citizens of this country) believes, the President does not have the power to declare war, and therefore all the "enemies" he's detaine
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:How would he like it.... (Score:3, Informative)
1)the false premise that the President made a unilateral decision to invade Iraq, against the wishes of the US Congress but the 'Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq' was passed by both the House and the Senate in 2002.
and
2)that the United States can take no military action without a formal declaration of war. That argument is ridiculous on it's face, as it would require a formal declaration of war any time that NATO or
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has claimed he will be tried in federal court just like any other criminal, but the very idea that he COULD be held indefinitely without any sort of due process under the current law is troubling.
If other countries believe the US will refuse to allow due process in any case it can label "terrorism," they will be unwilling to extradite criminals to us, which is a net loss for the cause of criminal justice.
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
America's an absolute discrace, I find myself thinking more and more they deserve everything they get (I'll say hi to him in Guantanamo!)
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 cha
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that the U.S. of A. even has to make such a promise, puts them out of step with regards to the human rights most other 1st world countries take for granted. I'm not saying that people don't get dissappeared in other countries, just that the option isn't official public policy.
I read another article about the guy off that site, and found this bit of information very interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4721183.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
We're talking about torture here, dumbass. (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's not forget about the Iraqi soldiers tortured and humilliated.
Re:We're talking about torture here, dumbass. (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you call three squares a day and 5 prayer breaks torture. OK, there has been some sleep depravation and one prisoner there did flush a Koran.
I think you are confusing Guantanimo and Abu Ghraib, and even then, panties on the head is hardly torture.
Besides, this guy's lawyer is talking out his ass. Guantanimo is where terrorists found on the battlefield go for interrogation. Not where Brittish computer hackers go torture.
Re:We're talking about torture here, dumbass. (Score:2)
Amnesty International (Score:5, Informative)
Unless you call three squares a day and 5 prayer breaks torture.
Sorry, but Amnesty International [amnesty.org] disagrees with you. OK, maybe I exaggerated, Guantanamo isn't one of the worst prisons in the world. It's one of the worst AMERICAN prisons in the world. According to Amnesty Intl, "Guantánamo Bay has become a symbol of injustice and abuse in the US administration's 'war on terror'. It must be closed down".
There, happy now?
Re:Amnesty International (Score:3, Informative)
Cuba? It was great, say boys freed from US prison camp
James Astill meets teenagers released from Guantanamo Bay who recall the place fondly
Saturday March 6, 2004 The Guardian
Asadullah strives to make his point, switching to English lest there be any mistaking him. "I am lucky I went there, and now I miss it. Cuba was great," said the 14-year-old, knotting his brow in the effort to make sure he is understood.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,1374 3 [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Amnesty International (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, you're close. What you meant is "except holding people they called terrorists without trials". They've released some of those people after 3 years (some of them, incidentally, British subjects), saying "oops, you really weren't an enemy combatant after all... somebody just turned you in to get reward money."
You'd think they could have figured that out in a few days, at most a week. But years?
The gov
Re:We're talking about torture here, dumbass. (Score:3, Informative)
How, exactly, does that preclude torture? If somebody gave his kid three squares a day, let him pray whenever he wanted, and kicked him in the head with steel-toed boots every time the kid talked back to him, would you hold the guy up as a paragon of good parenting?
OK, there has been some sleep depravation and one prisoner there did flush a Koran.
There's more. One detainee had his head and mouth duct-taped. Another was "short-shackled"
Re:We're talking about torture here, dumbass. (Score:3, Informative)
Just "panties on the head", eh?
Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse [wikipedia.org]
More photos [antiwar.com]
Beatings, electric shocks, dog maulings, physical and psychological abuse.
Or, maybe you like to refer to them by their more "patriotic" name: "Freedom tickles"?
erm perhaps you should inform yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
- Many of the alleged terrorists in Guantanamo were picked up in the bounty program in Pakistan
- One satirist from Pakistan was recently released and has interviewed repeatedly on conditions that are, without a doubt, torture
- The "tribulnals" to determine whether or not someone belonged there were farcical kangaroo courts, with defendants unable to view evidence against them or cross examine alleged eye witnesses because those documents were "classified"
Make no mistake, Guantanamo is another stain on America's conscience, and makes the phrase "Land of the Free" ironic at best.Re:I just don't understand you people (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do you get your news from?
The UN has been complaining from Day 1 & is still calling for the shutdown of the Guantanamo prison camp.
http://www.google.com/search?q=UN+bush+guantanamo+ enemy+combatants [google.com]
To top it off, your logic is somewhat circular: enemy combatants have no rights to due process, they allege horrible treatement, but since they're enemy combatants we expect them to make such all
Re:I just don't understand you people (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, they hate Freedom!
OR, Amnesty International has an anti-'unjust detention' slant, and the U.S. happens to have fallen in the 'bad guys' camp on this issue. That would of course mean that U.S. isn't magically perfect and incapable of wrong-doing, which is obviously an insane position to take. Obviously, anyone who criticises the U.S. actions has an irrational bias!
if we didn't force feed people, we'd be accused of letting them starve to death.
One word: Gandhi .
Re:I just don't understand you people (Score:4, Insightful)
Has it ever come to your mind that "the rules of war" are made up by the powerful nations? Take the example of the international criminal court: The USA will not ratify the international criminal court [wikipedia.org] unless it is made sure that US soldiers cannot be tried for war crimes. Furthermore, the USA simply stated that everybody arrested in Guantanamo is exempted from the Geneva conventions. Why? Well, because.
While a little bit of collateral damage (i.e., a few hundred dead civilians) is perfectly acceptable when a missile misses its target, its against "the rules of war" to blow yourself up in midst a crowd of civilians. Certain countries are not allowed to own atomic weapons. Which countries define who's allowed to? Well, the countries that already own atomic weapons.
Sigh..... No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Amnesty International does not have an anti-US slant. You are mistaking their opposition towards detaining masses of people without due process and torturing them to get information from them as bias against the United States. The unprovoked abuse of prisoners is not an accusation by Amnesty International, but rather, by the FBI, and most would consider this the tip of the iceberg, as the government is in the business of media-friendly-spin. Do a google search, it's fairly well known... how it is that people get this idea in their heads that life is peachy keen at a concentration camp, I'll never know. Oh, and of course they are fed and given semi-clean quarters; anything less would be a giant target painted on the United States and its military for international ridicule, and as we're on thin ice enough as it is, they are at least smart enough not to be so brashly cruel. Starvation, beatings, sleep-deprivation, and other torture techniques can be blamed on a myriad of inter-prisoner problems. As long as you sweep the cells and wash the dishes, you can stave off accusations of abuse for years.
Furthermore, we have broken the rules of warfare outright by keeping so many "enemy combatants" imprisoned without allowing them any access to the outside world, let alone any rights of any kind... but as we already told the U.N. it has not power over us, there is no one to bring us to trial. As the link between Iraq and bin Laden has already been disproved, again and again, one does wonder how exactly an Iraqi soldier has broken the rules of war, mmm? By fighting against us? Not only that, but holding soldiers from the old Taliban regime is a rather grand stretch unless, by due process of law, you can prove they had ties to bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Otherwise, they were doing their job as soldiers.
In fact, the term "enemy combatant" was invented to weasel out of calling our opponents "soldiers", thus giving the military the barest sliver of justification for breaking the rules of warfare. If they were legally defined as "soldiers", they could not be held without due process, legal counsel, or access to the outside world, including friends and family. Abuse would be out of the fucking question, let alone torture.
I would say the greatest obstacle towards understanding the reality of the situation for so many of my fellow Americans is our innately violent tempers. I remember a majority of the people I spoke to for weeks after 9/11 speaking about simply bombing or nuking the country with the responsible group out of existence, not joking in the slightest. I often wonder how many people will ever realize how dark and evil such a thought is?
Anyway, my opposition does not mainly come from any objection towards violence, far from it: violence is simply another form of interaction between entities, and is quite necessary to make sure the bloodthirsty don't have their way with the world. My opposition comes from the extremely dishonorable behavior exhibited by the military by slithering out of the rules of the Geneva Convention by using the term "enemy combatant", and for the light-heartedness with which we invaded Iraq, and our insulting behavior towards the UN. Honor is a serious thing, whether or not people push past their misconceptions of it. As if all of that weren't enough, I can't help but feel that the desensitization of the American public through television and such hasn't created apathy, but rather, a willingness to accept brutality as a way of life rather than working towards something better. I hear it echoed every time someone tells me "The only reason you can criticize your government is because we live in a civilized society, why don't you try that in (insert random violent government/country)." Idiots. Where do they think this society came from? Just by luck, just by our birth on this land? We live in this society because we made it as best
Re:Torture? You're just clueless. (Score:5, Insightful)
You've made your bigotry quite clear with your unapologetic ignorance and your IMO's, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take your post somewhat seriously for comment.
They waged war against our country and are being kept alive only out of the restraint of the American government. [...] These aren't innocent bystanders. They're warriors commited to killing Americans.
Because someone told you they did? Do you realize that the vast majority of the detainees there weren't even captured by U.S. forces, but rather by bounty hunters? The America you seem so intent on defending was founded upon, among other things, the ideas that one is innocent until proven guilty, and that all people are created equal. Many prisoners held at Guantanamo are detained indefinitely without charge or conviction. By conveniently choosing to afford rights only to your own citizens, you are nullifying the validity of your own ideology.
These are non-uniformed combatants (to whom the Genevea convention most certainly does NOT apply). They could (and should IMO) be drug out and shot at a moment's notice, quite legally.
While the Bush administration has sneakily avoided classifying the prisoners as POW to get around the Geneva convention (which no other government in the world has supported, mind you), the U.S. has in the past signed other international treaties that clearly ban what they are doing with Guantanamo. So no, it wouldn't be legal, not by a longshot.
If you want to know torture, examine a Muslim prison where fingers, hands, eyes, tongues are removed. Feeding is optional. Ever seen a "stoning" (and no, I don't mean you and and your friends with a bong)? A beheading?
Where are these Muslim prisons? Are you just making this up? Provide some facts, we don't want to hear your sensationalist bullshit.
Amnesty International called the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp the "gulag of our times", and the U.N. has called it a "human rights scandal". I won't comment on how bad it is relative to other prisons worldwide, but the existence of 'worse' prisons doesn't somehow justify the existence of Guantanamo Bay's.
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.
Re:5 grand? (Score:2)
Re:5 grand? (Score:3, Insightful)
Once the machine has been compromised, they need to take it down. There is a cost associated with downtime. There is the time needed to build a new system to provide the same services. There is the time needed to correct the security problems. (Some would argue that this was just development time that was previously deferred by management decisions.)
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not liking the actions of others does not give you a carte blanche to exact punishment of your choice.
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:4, Insightful)
For morons like you who don't understand what this means, it essentially boils down to the requirement that the punishment for a crime has to fit the seriousness of the crime. You can't get a death sentence for stealing a pack of bubble gum, for example; and that's not just because the law doesn't allow for it. It's because such a law would be unconstitutional.
That being said, there's another issue here that so far, everyone seems to be glossing over: the fact that he's facing extradition to begin with. Doesn't the UK have laws against computer crime, too? If so, why does he have to be extradited, much less to a country that does not extradite its own citizens to the UK? (Yes, the extradition agreement between the UK and the US is one-way - does anyone still want to tell me that Blair isn't Shrub's lap dog?) And if the UK does NOT have laws against this... well, then he didn't do anything illegal, and cannot and should not be extradited. (Otherwise, using the same reasoning, China could ask for the extradition of people speaking out against its government in other countries, too, for example, and I think that most people would agree that that's not something that should happen.)
And finally, you can't blame him for being anxious. Bush has shown time and again that he doesn't care about whether what he does is legal or not (in fact, he has openly SAID that he considers himself to be above the law); given that, I'm not surprised that the guy is worried.
Sure, he did something wrong, and most likely, he committed a crime under UK laws. But that doesn't mean that his human rights and the constitutional rights he enjoys in the USA and all that simply vanish; and most importantly, it does mean that his dignity simply vanishes.
The Germans have a clause like that in their constitution: "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar" ("human dignity is inviolable") - it's the first clause in their constitution. Maybe it's time we get an amendment like that, too, so that concentration camps like the one on Cuba will be illegal. Well, not that the criminals running the country now would really care, of course...
Re:How would he like it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, in addition to the common law tradition that punishment should be proportional to the crime, the men who wrote th
Re:Keep in mind.... (Score:2)
I'm not certain about this, but i'm sure there's something about the UK not being allowed to extradite prisoners to a country where they face the possibility of the death penalty, detention in Guantanimo may fall under various clauses related to that (Imprisonment indefinately without trial,
Re:Keep in mind.... (Score:2)
No, just British businessmen they kidnapped in the Gambia. The conspiracy theory on that one keeps getting deeper, btw: looks like al-Rawi was sold out to the Yanks by MI5...
Re:if he's worried about Gitmo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Arrested on US soil. He wasnt charged until Nov 22, 2005. Held for YEARS before he was allowed counsel...
As an American, this crap pisses me off to no end.
Jose Padilla (Score:3, Insightful)
Not [chargepadilla.org] entirely [wikipedia.org]. As far as the (some innocent, some not) people from Afghanistan, Iraq, wherever... well, I feel bad for them, but I also feel bad for all the kids starving in China, or dying of AIDS in Africa, or... well, you get the picture.
But criminal though he may be, and terrorist, probably... Jose Padilla is an American citizen. The fact that it took three years of legal wrangling to force the government to