Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 May '10 12:34
    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.
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    20 May '10 12:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
    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.
    If 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.
  3. 20 May '10 14:00
    As far as I can tell from media coverage, the only people not opposing his extradition were the Labour government!
  4. 21 May '10 09:23
    Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
    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.
    Aside 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."?

    Are you implying that it is more desirable to get rid of people with 'Asperger's Syndrome'?
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 May '10 09:36
    Originally posted by lausey
    Are you implying that it is more desirable to get rid of people with 'Asperger's Syndrome'?
    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.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 May '10 13:30 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    People on both the "right" and "left" oppose his extradition,
    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.
  7. 21 May '10 14:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    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.
    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 in the UK when the crime was committed, and should get all the rights of a UK citizen under UK law.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 May '10 14:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by lausey
    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.
    It is in the UK's best interests to protect their citizens if the US government cannot guarantee that he will be treated fairly.

    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.
  9. 21 May '10 15:34
    Originally posted by sh76

    Why wouldn't he be treated fairly? He'll get the same treatment as any other accused hacker will get.
    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.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 May '10 15:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    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.
    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 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.
  11. 21 May '10 17:35
    Originally posted by sh76
    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.
    I'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).
  12. 21 May '10 18:07
    Originally posted by FMF
    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.
    I knew nothing about your personal circumstances so do not ascribe to me
    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.
  13. 21 May '10 18:09
    Originally posted by sh76
    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.
    agreed.
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 May '10 18:25
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I'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).
    Okay; and I'm just explaining why that "bad reputation" should not be relevant to the question as to whether Mr. Mckinnon should be extradited.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    21 May '10 18:30
    I'd also note the irony that a country that has enacted a "universal jurisdiction" rule is so worried about a foreign country asserting jurisdiction over one of its subjects.