20 May 10
This is the UK resident who hacked into the Pentagon computer system, and created mayhem, who is currently under threat of extradition to America to answer for his folly but whose deportation is being contested, predictibly, by the looney left. In mitigation he is said to be suffering from 'Asperges Syndrome' which I should have thought made it even more desirable to get rid of him.
20 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusIf he's autistic then that would of course have a bearing on how he might be treated in this case, and rightly so. Tell us more about what it is that you are referring to with the word "mayhem"? People on both the "right" and "left" oppose his extradition, including your favourite The Daily Mail, and the Conservative Party. "...deportation is being contested, predictibly, by the looney left...". What a caricature you are.
This is the UK resident who hacked into the Pentagon computer system, and created mayhem, who is currently under threat of extradition to America to answer for his folly but whose deportation is being contested, predictibly, by the looney left. In mitigation he is said to be suffering from 'Asperges Syndrome' which I should have thought made it even more desirable to get rid of him.
21 May 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusAside from the argument of whether he should be extradited or not, what do you exactly mean by "In mitigation he is said to be suffering from 'Asperges Syndrome' which I should have thought made it even more desirable to get rid of him."?
This is the UK resident who hacked into the Pentagon computer system, and created mayhem, who is currently under threat of extradition to America to answer for his folly but whose deportation is being contested, predictibly, by the looney left. In mitigation he is said to be suffering from 'Asperges Syndrome' which I should have thought made it even more desirable to get rid of him.
Are you implying that it is more desirable to get rid of people with 'Asperger's Syndrome'?
21 May 10
Originally posted by lauseyTake a moment to examine Sartor Resartus' posting history. You will see what his schtick is here at RHP. 90% of his posts are directed at me. And at me only. All of them pointlessly abusive. And he knows I have an autistic son. So that is the reason for saying what he said in the OP, without doubt.
Are you implying that it is more desirable to get rid of people with 'Asperger's Syndrome'?
21 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThen they're both wrong.
People on both the "right" and "left" oppose his extradition,
If you intentionally cause harmful and illegal effects in another country, it's perfectly reasonable to be subject to that country's criminal jurisdiction.
If the UK wants to prosecute him, fine. But when they're done with him, he should absolutely be extradited.
21 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76It is in the UK's best interests to protect their citizens if the US government cannot guarantee that he will be treated fairly.
Then they're both wrong.
If you intentionally cause harmful and illegal effects in another country, it's perfectly reasonable to be subject to that country's criminal jurisdiction.
If the UK wants to prosecute him, fine. But when they're done with him, he should absolutely be extradited.
In a hypothetical scenario, if he committed the same crime on a country which happened to have the death penalty for such crime, would you expect that person to be extradited to that country to be killed?
The point is he was in the UK when the crime was committed, and should get all the rights of a UK citizen under UK law.
21 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyIt is in the UK's best interests to protect their citizens if the US government cannot guarantee that he will be treated fairly.
It is in the UK's best interests to protect their citizens if the US government cannot guarantee that he will be treated fairly.
In a hypothetical scenario, if he committed the same crime on a country which happened to have the death penalty for such crime, would you expect that person to be extradited to that country to be killed?
The point is he was i ...[text shortened]... he UK when the crime was committed, and should get all the rights of a UK citizen under UK law.
Why wouldn't he be treated fairly? He'll get the same treatment as any other accused hacker will get.
In a hypothetical scenario, if he committed the same crime on a country which happened to have the death penalty for such crime, would you expect that person to be extradited to that country to be killed?
How is that relevant? That's not the case here. The US and UK do have an extradition agreement. We're not talking about extradition to a lawless country with no reliable judicial system. The US and UK have historically recognized the reliability of each others' judicial systems in many contexts. I understand that there is an exception that European countries won't extradite to a country where the death penalty is a possibility for the offense in question. That's another can of worms; but that's not the case here.
The point is he was in the UK when the crime was committed, and should get all the rights of a UK citizen under UK law.
No. He gave up the "rights of a UK citizen under UK law" when he committed a crime in the US.
The crime was committed IN the US. It was committed FROM the UK. When you hack into American computers in the United States, you are committing a crime in and against the United States. Where you're sitting is irrelevant. If I sit here on the phone in New York and hire a hit man to kill a man in London, I am committing a crime in the UK. Perhaps the US also has jurisdiction in my case because I was sitting here. But there's no question the UK also has jurisdiction.
21 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf you want the US to cooperate with extradition of criminals who commit crimes against Europe and in general with enforcing applicable European law where the US has jurisdiction, then you ought to do the same.
The U.S. legal system doesn't really have a stellar reputation abroad, due to embarrassments such as Guantanamo, absurd punitive damages and the O.J. Simpson case.
To start nitpicking on individual incidents and summarily conclude that the US justice system is not trustworthy in general makes no sense. Is it the position of the European countries that the US is a lawless country without a reliable judicial system? If not, the don't interfere with its operation. If so, then drawing that conclusion is smug sanctimonious nonsense.
In any case, all three of your examples are completely irrelevant here.
Guantanamo has nothing to do with the US Judicial system, which was the entire point of the controversy. The entire controversy was exactly that the Guantanamo inmates were not given access to the US court system.
Punitive damages is a civil issue. What in the World does that have to do with the criminal justice system? What business is it of the Europeans how much money plaintiffs are awarded in civil cases in the US?
The OJ Simpson case?? What?? You mean his acquittal in 1995? That was a jury verdict. You might not have noticed, but they have those in the UK too. The whole concept of a jury was born and reared in the UK. The UK should now refuse to extradite a computer hacker because one jury did something stupid 15 years ago? I don't get it.
21 May 10
Originally posted by sh76I'm just explaining why the U.S. legal system may have a bad reputation amongst some Europeans, and those well-publicized cases have contributed to this poor reputation. Whether or not the U.S. legal system is actually bad I cannot judge (pun intended).
If you want the US to cooperate with extradition of criminals who commit crimes against Europe and in general with enforcing applicable European law where the US has jurisdiction, then you ought to do the same.
To start nitpicking on individual incidents and summarily conclude that the US justice system is not trustworthy in general makes no sense. Is it the ...[text shortened]... xtradite a computer hacker because one jury did something stupid 15 years ago? I don't get it.
21 May 10
Originally posted by FMFI knew nothing about your personal circumstances so do not ascribe to me
Take a moment to examine Sartor Resartus' posting history. You will see what his schtick is here at RHP. 90% of his posts are directed at me. And at me only. All of them pointlessly abusive. And he knows I have an autistic son. So that is the reason for saying what he said in the OP, without doubt.
intentions which exist only in your befuddled mind.
As to opposing your views, and your whole approach to posting on this forum, I have noticed how ready you always are to abuse others and shift blame, making yourself thoroughly obnoxious in the process. Oh, but then I forgot, you are the man who has 'travelled the world' and therefore knows everything.
21 May 10
Originally posted by sh76agreed.
Then they're both wrong.
If you intentionally cause harmful and illegal effects in another country, it's perfectly reasonable to be subject to that country's criminal jurisdiction.
If the UK wants to prosecute him, fine. But when they're done with him, he should absolutely be extradited.