Originally posted by no1marauderYou know perfectly well that the US is not going to give him 70 years or send him to Gitmo. That's just nonsense talk. I have no idea who thought up the 70 years nugget, but whoever did so was probably using statutory maximums which always sound ridiculous. 14 counts of lying to federal officials technically has a statutory maximum of 70 years (5 years per count), but that bears no relevance to the actual sentence. You have to look at the federal sentencing guidelines for a range of what he actually is facing.
If I'm reading the UK statute correctly, the maximum McKinnon could get for his crime in the UK is six months in jail. The claim earlier was that the US might give him up to 70 years or even toss him in Gitmo as a "terrorist".
The primary purpose of governments is to protect the Natural Rights of their citizens. For the UK government to tur ...[text shortened]... laws to accepted international norms even if Scalia and company feel that is unnecessary.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76You may call it nonsense. But it was a calculatedly intimidating plea bargain gambit by U.S. federal lawyers, as was the talk of terrorism and Guantanamo Bay. Of course we do not have your questionable plea bargaining system in U.K. jurisprudence. Another reason why McKinnon is still in the U.K., methinks.
You know perfectly well that the US is not going to give him 70 years or send him to Gitmo. That's just nonsense talk.
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76The source of the "nonsense talk" was the U.S. Department of Justice
You know perfectly well that the US is not going to give him 70 years or send him to Gitmo. That's just nonsense talk. I have no idea who thought up the 70 years nugget, but whoever did so was probably using statutory maximums which always sound ridiculous. 14 counts of lying to federal officials technically has a statutory maximum of 70 years (5 years per coun ...[text shortened]... ou have to look at the federal sentencing guidelines for a range of what he actually is facing.
United States Attorney Eastern District of Virginia:
Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, announced that Gary McKinnon, of London, England, was indicted in Alexandria today by a federal grand jury on seven counts of computer fraud and related activity. McKinnon faces on each count a maximum sentence of 10 years of imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/mckinnonIndict.htm
EDIT: McKinnon is charged with deliberately damaging the US military in a time of war (we're at permanent, never ending war according to the US government). You might think that a judge in Virginia would sentence at significantly less than maximum, but that's guesswork on your part. I'd say its very likely he would get a sentence in the range of 15-20 years for an act that would get him 6 months (at most) in his home country.
Originally posted by no1marauderEDIT: McKinnon is charged with deliberately damaging the US military in a time of war (we're at permanent, never ending war according to the US government
The source of the "nonsense talk" was the U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney Eastern District of Virginia:
Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, announced that Gary McKinnon, of London, England, was indicted in Alexandria today by a federal grand jury on seven counts of computer fraud ...[text shortened]... range of 15-20 years for an act that would get him 6 months (at most) in his home country.
just out of curiosity, is this referring to iraq, afghanistan, or simply the whole war on terror?
Originally posted by generalissimoThe last.
[b]EDIT: McKinnon is charged with deliberately damaging the US military in a time of war (we're at permanent, never ending war according to the US government
just out of curiosity, is this referring to iraq, afghanistan, or simply the whole war on terror?[/b]
Originally posted by FMFAll I can say to that is that, whatever the defects of the US system, at least we don't presume that we have jurisdiction to indict foreign leaders for acts that had no impact on anything under American jurisdiction.
You may call it nonsense. But it was a calculatedly intimidating plea bargain gambit by U.S. federal lawyers, as was the talk of terrorism and Guantanamo Bay. Of course we do not have your questionable plea bargaining system in U.K. jurisprudence. Another reason why McKinnon is still in the U.K., methinks.
Originally posted by sh76Did you have a problem with this country indicting a foreigner for acts that had no impact on anything under their jurisdiction? http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/eichmann.html
All I can say to that is that, whatever the defects of the US system, at least we don't presume that we have jurisdiction to indict foreign leaders for acts that had no impact on anything under American jurisdiction.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's becuase his 'home Country' has gone soft in the head and has degenerated into a haven for crimninals of all sorts including muzzie terrorists.
The source of the "nonsense talk" was the U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney Eastern District of Virginia:
Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, announced that Gary McKinnon, of London, England, was indicted in Alexandria today by a federal grand jury on seven counts of computer fraud ...[text shortened]... range of 15-20 years for an act that would get him 6 months (at most) in his home country.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll make an exception for an arch-genocidal mastermind who was responsible for millions of murders whom nobody else in the World seems willing or able to bring to justice.
Did you have a problem with this country indicting a foreigner for acts that had no impact on anything under their jurisdiction? http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/eichmann.html
Originally posted by sh76Apparently Crimes against Humanity are more serious in your view if they are committed against certain people rather than others.
I'll make an exception for an arch-genocidal mastermind who was responsible for millions of murders whom nobody else in the World seems willing or able to bring to justice.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's not a double standard if the crimes are not comparable.
No, I am commenting on your double standard.
You said:
Apparently Crimes against Humanity are more serious in your view if they are committed against certain people rather than others.
I'm saying: No, Crimes against Humanity are more serious when they're more serious.
Edit:
As a legal matter, you are no doubt aware that the issuing of the Livni warrant by a UK judge was perfectly legal under the 1957 Geneva Convention.
And so I'm sure the UK would have no problem if, the next time Tony Blair is in Israel trying to stimulate the peace process, Israel arrests him for his role in the Iraq war; correct?
2 edits
I have just read the transcription of an interview Gary Mckinnon gave to a journalist from the Guardian newspaper.
This clearly shows that the attempt to prevent his being extradited to America by portraying him as a poor innocent half-wit who didn't know what he was doing is dishonest, and motivated more by 'anti-American syndrome' than an appeal for justice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2005/jul/09/weekend7.weekend2
Originally posted by Sartor Resartus😵
I have just read the transcription of an interview Gary Mckinnon gave to a journalist from the Guardian newspaper.
This clearly shows that the attempt to prevent his being extradited to America by portraying him as a poor innocent half-wit who didn't know what he was doing is dishonest, and motivated more by 'anti-American syndrome' than an appeal for justice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2005/jul/09/weekend7.weekend2
"I'm having all these visions of ... " Gary puts on a redneck prisoner voice, "'What you doing attacking our country, boy? Pick up that soap.' "