backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by Viditor.. on Apr 17 at 9:59 AM

Gary McKinnon is currently fighting extradition to the United States

The attorney for Briton Gary McKinnon, the biggest US military hacker ever, has said that McKinnon is afraid he will be prosecuted under US anti-terror laws -- which the attorney says could send him to Guantanamo Bay.  McKinnon allegedly broke into 97 government computers to try and find evidence the US government knows about UFOs but has been concealing information about extraterrestrial life.  His illegal activities allegedly caused around $700,000 of damage.  He hacked into the government computers in 14 different states, including U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, NASA and Pentagon systems.  

A UK judge previously asked the US government for some sort of reassurance that McKinnon would be charged in federal court and not under any anti-terror laws.  District Judge Nicholas Evans will announce the decision whether or not McKinnon will be extradited on May 10.  If McKinnon is extradited, unless he has an agreement made with the federal government, anti-terror charges could be filed.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

?
By Kilim on 4/14/06, Rating: 0
RE: ?
By Decaydence on 4/14/2006 2:58:58 PM , Rating: 4
The whole point is that the United States is now misusing terrorism laws in order to bypass the legal system. I certainly don't blame the judge or the lawyers in this case for being reluctant to send this guy to a lawless land. I can't picture the US sending a citizen to a place that would bypass a trial. But I'm sure plenty of you won't be able to see past your idea that the US can do whatever it wants and still be right; even violate the tenets of right and wrong that it uses to judge other nations.

Before you make some rediculous statements like "screw you foreigner" or "USA RULES!, you suck!" or some other typical American response, I'm typing this from Florida.


RE: ?
By segagenesis on 4/14/2006 3:11:49 PM , Rating: 2
Can only agree with your statement. Breaking the law is one thing, but last I checked you still had a right to a fair trial... unless you are a terrorist. They could hold him down there indefinitely and with the way the law is written nobody can do anything about it. The modern equivalent to tossing someone in jail and throwing away the key.

Granted, this guy likely would go to jail either way... but I dont think that authoroties should get a free ticket to giving people life sentences without a trial.


RE: ?
By TomZ on 4/14/2006 3:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't picture the US sending a citizen to a place that would bypass a trial.

He's not a U.S. citizen, otherwise it would be even that much more difficult for the government to send him there.

You have to wonder whether the government believes that this guy had some real ties to terrorists, that maybe the UFO story was made up. I don't know anything about the actual situation...just speculating here. The reason I wonder is that I would think the government would know it would get a lot of criticism if it is perceived that these military prisons were being abused. There has been a lot of scrutiny and criticism to date, and I'd be surprised if they would push their luck.


RE: ?
By Decaydence on 4/14/2006 3:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
Tomz, don't bring your horrible lack of understanding to bear on my posts please. I never claimed he was a US citizen, I used that as an example so that people here could understand where these people are coming from. As in, England won't send someone somewhere that won't afford them a trial, just as we won't.


RE: ?
By TomZ on 4/14/2006 4:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tomz, don't bring your horrible lack of understanding to bear on my posts please.

Don't get on my case because you didn't communicate your point clearly. You were discussing the guy and his defense, then said that "I can't picture the US sending a citizen to a place that would bypass a trial." Any reasonable person reading that would think you were saying he was a U.S. citizen.

You also accuse me of having a lack of understanding, but your own post shows that you are the one with the lack of understanding. You said, "The whole point is that the United States is now misusing terrorism laws in order to bypass the legal system." You are way off on this, since the linked article clearly states that the "The US Embassy in London produced a note for the court stating that McKinnon would not face military charges ." The article also states nothing about the US having indicated it would do anything of the sort. This article is just based on the "technical possibility," (quoting the article again) i.e., complete speculation. So how exactly does this show how the US abusing anti-terror laws?

Finally, don't tell me where I can and cannot post replies. If you don't like the discussion, please refrain from posting in the first place.


RE: ?
By Tegeril on 4/14/2006 9:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, any reasonable person wouldn't think that he was saying the guy was a U.S. citizen. It was clear the first time, you made it confusing.


RE: ?
By ToeCutter on 4/15/2006 12:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's all about perspective. I took his description as "citizen" to mean a "civilian" as opposed to a "soldier". This is distinction is relevent due to the discussion of a military tribunal, which one would assume to apply only to soldiers.


RE: ?
By Nekrik on 4/14/2006 4:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
or some other typical American response, I'm typing this from Florida."


SFW - is that suppossed to be some sort of justification for you? LMAO



RE: ?
By Tsuwamono on 4/14/2006 4:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
George Orwell anyone?


RE: ?
By Sager on 4/14/2006 7:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
If your point is valid, then why do you find it necessary to stereotype how 'Americans' will react to your post or how 'Americans' feel? Noting the fact that you are posting from Florida is as irrelavant as the comments of other anti-american posters who always seem to feel it necessary to mention that they have an american girlfriend, or friends, as if that somehow bolsters their point.





RE: ?
By Decaydence on 4/14/2006 8:53:01 PM , Rating: 3
I apologize for my cumbersome wording. I'll clarify my intention with that line. I have found many times in the past that when a person criticizes US government policy there is a visceral reaction on the part of certain American's. Many times this reaction manifests itself in a reply attacking the original poster and his/her country of origin with rediculous, unfounded, and unrelated charges; similar to the examples I gave at the end of my post. I then went on to explain that I am an American myself in an attempt to stop these replies before they started; not to add some weight to my comments.

As I re-read my post, i realize the word "typical" was an unfortunate choice and mischaracterized my intentions. You are absolutely correct, the reaction that I laid out is not the one that most Americans would employ. However, it is a reaction that you will see in every corner of the web when anything political is discussed.

Finally, while the exaggeration, on my part, of American discourse, or lack thereof, certainly could paint my comments in a certain light, they are not anti-American. There is nothing American about holding people without a real trial by mischaracterizing them as combatants in a war. While this hasn't been proven to be the reality in this case, this is the concern that the judge in the case is voicing; a concern born in the day-to-day activities authorized and orchestrated by the current administration, which is the real target of my criticism and angst.


RE: ?
By Wwhat on 4/14/2006 9:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
Of course the claim that he would be held under those terrorist laws is merely a fear uttered by the suspect relayed by a defense lawyer, not that it's an unreasonable fear in this day and age, still we should seperate the actual facts from fears somewhat, as of yet there was no american judge or official who decided he would be held under such laws but merely an UK judge who asked assurances he would not be.



RE: ?
By peternelson on 4/14/2006 9:44:59 PM , Rating: 2

Meanwhile here in the UK, a man has been issued with a control order to restrict his movements under our recent terrorism legislation.

Such people are not told of their alledged crime nor the evidence but may be held, restricted or imprisoned.

Apparently there has to be a judge who approves it.

The reasoning is that there MAY be strong evidence eg from secret services of the crime, but that to take it to court would require disclosing the secrets and methods used to find the evidence.

So in theory the state may be able to arbitrarily hold anyone without charge or trial.

Now, taking my conspiracy about aliens helping the hacker. It seems that if aliens were discovered already and kept secret, it could be argued that in the interests of national security, the hacker should be placed in Guantanamo without trial. If they brought the case to court, the truth of alien existence from secret files would come out into the open and not everyone would want that to become public knowledge. Imprisoning the hacker who had the evidence of aliens would be a way to keep him quiet, or hope that he was denounced as a madman.

Conspiracy, conspiracy.... but I would not like to be imprisoned without the chance to defend myself in court.


RE: ?
By Decaydence on 4/15/2006 12:45:15 AM , Rating: 2
peternelson, you better watch yourself. You are obviously getting WAY too close to the truth here. To make things worse for you, you have chosen to use your real name in these posts. I have a feeling that you may soon be eye to eye with a couple of aliens in Guantanamo if you continue to break through the walls of deception in this case. You have a keen eye for reading between the lines, perhaps TOO keen.


RE: ?
By peternelson on 4/15/2006 2:29:31 AM , Rating: 2

Better watch what I say, you never know what the secret services have made up about you ;-)

But don't worry, my alien friends will come and rescue me.


RE: ?
By ToeCutter on 4/15/2006 11:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The whole point is that the United States is now misusing terrorism laws in order to bypass the legal system. I certainly don't blame the judge or the lawyers in this case for being reluctant to send this guy to a lawless land. I can't picture the US sending a citizen to a place that would bypass a trial. But I'm sure plenty of you won't be able to see past your idea that the US can do whatever it wants and still be right; even violate the tenets of right and wrong that it uses to judge other nations.


I couldn't agree more. It's just too bad that opinions like ours are so few and far between. I cannot recall in my lifetime a time when American society was frightened so badly that we're willing to accept almost radical interpretation of civil rights and executive power.

As a 10-year US Army veteran, I'm disgusted with this new, fashionable "post-911, scared shitless, anything-goes-when-it-relates-to-terror" attitude. I simply cannot accept as fact that al-Queda is any more a threat now than Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union were during those conflicts. We need to deal with the threat, but we shouldn't lose our minds (or, our freedom) in doing so.

I considered correcting you by stating that it's not so much the United States that's misusing these "anti-terrorist laws", but more so the US administration that feels compelled to prosecute anyone overseas using these laws, but you are quite correct in your description. Our democracy put those brilliant folks in power, so it does ultimately reflect on each and every one of us.

America has never seemed so hopelessly adrift.

(/zips US Govt issued flame-retardent suit tightly in anticipation of mindless "patriotic" responses by those who've never given more than lip service and taxes to their country)


RE: ?
By Sager on 4/15/2006 6:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
So anyone who disagrees with you is a suffering from 'mindless patriotism'? People with your views are hardly 'few and far between'. Of course, part and parcel of politically fashionable views like yours is a persecution complex, which you are clearly displaying here.





RE: ?
By Decaydence on 4/15/2006 6:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
Lets be very clear, he never said anyone who disagrees with him is suffering from "mindless patriotism". There are certainly ways to disagree with his assessment without responding with "mindless patriotism", however, it isn't as though these mindless and rediculous visceral reactions in the name of patriotism don't happen.


RE: ?
By Decaydence on 4/15/2006 6:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
Lets be very clear, he never said anyone who disagrees with him is suffering from "mindless patriotism". There are certainly ways to disagree with his assessment without responding with "mindless patriotism", however, it isn't as though these mindless and rediculous visceral reactions in the name of patriotism don't happen.


RE: ?
By Decaydence on 4/15/2006 6:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry about double post, new laptop and I haven't gotten to the point that unintentional clicks don't happen with the touchpad, went to hit enter for a new paragraph and posted instead, twice. Anyway, to finish the thought.

To look at the situation from the other end, what if you posted a thoughtful explanation as to why it is ok to hold people who aren't terrorists under terrorism laws and someone replied with "America sucks and you are stoopid!"? That would be a mindless reply by someone who didn't agree with you.

I have seen this reaction more times than I can count on behalf of Americans who, rightfully so, are proud of their nation and don't understand that it is ok to disagree with the administration in charge and at the same time be patriotic. This reaction is of course on the part of the people who don't understand the conversation but want to vocalize their initial reaction. I do, however, acknowledge the fact that their are plenty of people who disagree with us on this that don't take that reaction; but it is common enough that it warrants a preemptive condemnation of the act. It is not a condemnation of the opposing view.


RE: ?
By Sager on 4/15/2006 8:46:09 PM , Rating: 2
Preemptive condemnation?

That's hardly consistant with liberal ideology, but alas, it is quite common liberal behavior.

At any rate, the instances of 'preemptive condemnation' happen far more frequently than the bahavior being condemned. It's as if some people have a need to stereotype and degrade...and having been stripped of other socially acceptable targets, they find its now, and fashionable in certain circles to degrade and villify 'amerikkkans'. This is not reserved only to non-americans.

As for a particular point of view being espoused by ill informed people with alterior motives, this forum has far more anti-american posts thinly veneered in the cause du jour. I'm old enough to remember how many west european 'elites' and american liberals expressed support for the soviet union. The bias against the US played a much bigger role than any fact based and fair analysis of the circumstances.

Now, we have a situation where similarly inclined people are so blinded by their hatred of the USA, that fact, context, and fair debate are again swept aside by overriding bias, and while the left 'preemptively' paints opposing viewpoints as those of unthinking hicks, the fact is that the preponderance of those on the left, when faced with fact based debate, quickly resort to ridicule because they simply don't have enough accurate information to hold their end of the debate up.

Of course, if you state an opinion, and know that you can't sustain it through intelligent conversation, you can always 'preemptively' ridicule...




RE: ?
By Decaydence on 4/15/2006 9:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
I see, we are at fault for supposedly painting people with opposing viewpoints as unthinking hicks yet it is perfectly fine for you to paint those with opposing viewpoints as uninformed american-hating scumbags? If you want to assess which side of the argument is using fact, or debating the issue at all, just take a look back at your posts. You haven't once even weighed in on the debate, you know, the one that involves all of these facts and all of this thinking that you and your side has supposedly been doing.

All you have done is mischaracterized post after post, ignoring nuance, interperating each sentence as extreme by ignoring mitigating terminology and taking things out of context, and turning things into blanket statements that were obviously never intended to be.

Then, to further explain your position on this issue, you proceed to redicule and make blanket statements about the people expressing opposing views, while never once weighing in on the debate itself.

Of course, if you can't sustain an intelligent conversation about your opinion, you can always neglect to express it and instead attack the rest of us that are more than happy to have a dialogue about our opinions.


RE: ?
By Sager on 4/15/2006 10:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
If I understand your argument correctly, blanket statements are NOT an acceptable means of discourse...unless of course, *you* happen to agree with them :)

As for engaging in a debate. State some analysis, state what you believe to be the facts, and I'll be happy to debate you. Thus far, I've there's only seen grandstanding and name calling.

Try to relax, just because a point makes a direct hit on your sensibilites, doesn't mean you should get so upset. If you think you're an 'american hating scumbag', then learn to embrace it...denying your true feelings is self destructive.


RE: ?
By ToeCutter on 4/16/2006 9:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So anyone who disagrees with you is a suffering from 'mindless patriotism'? People with your views are hardly 'few and far between'. Of course, part and parcel of politically fashionable views like yours is a persecution complex, which you are clearly displaying here.


Stop. Relax. Read post again.

You should notice that I state I "anticipate mindless patriotic responses". My anticipation is due to my experience in having countless discussions with those who disagree, but offer nothing more than patriotism as their reasoning, as if patriotism represented an "ideological trump card" for which there exists no retort.

I'm not quite sure how reached the questionable conclusion that I'm some how exhibiting a "persecution complex"? I have no feelings of persecution by you, or anyone for that matter.

I'm hardly surprised that you commented almost exclusively on the wisecrack at the end of the post, making little effort to comment on the topic of the thread.

In fact, after reading several of your comments, I've noticed that you only comment specifically on the posts. You have offered nothing of your opinion, while at the same time sniping everyone elses?

How about commiting to your position on the topic of the thread, Sager?



Hacking - how he did it
By flend on 4/14/2006 6:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
The guy said on an interview on British TV (from what I could gather) that he used some downloaded programs (packet sniffers?) to look for plaintext passwords. Certainly coverage on TV here has been quite pro- the guy but our government isn't currently known for its deep and profound understanding of matters IT. According to an interview with his former 'spin-doctor' Tony Blair apparently has a PC on his desk but doesn't ever use it :) The spin-doctor himself had a secretary print out all his emails for him so he didn't have to use the internet.




RE: Hacking - how he did it
By peternelson on 4/14/2006 7:05:46 PM , Rating: 2

Maybe he was working for the aliens, to break into systems containing reports and to erase all traces of the data so that they remain hidden.

If aliens had technology to come here from another planet and fast ships they would not CRASH on earth they would land or hover.

If they had that technology they would probably have technology to quickly break military level secret keys used to encrypt and passwords. So the aliens helped him break in and REMOVE the evidence under a cover story of trying to FIND evidence.

I find it worrying that with the help of some aliens this guy could infiltrate computers easily like this. It is a good job that aliens don't help terrorists too or the USA would be in trouble and need to vastly improve their security technologies.


RE: Hacking - how he did it
By peternelson on 4/14/2006 7:10:30 PM , Rating: 2

And this is my proof for alien existence.

1. The USA government would not be so stupid as to leave sensitive databases insecure.

2. THEREFORE the government takes steps to secure their data using the best technologies available.

3. THEREFORE it would not be possible to hack without superior technologies.

4. THEREFORE a hacker would need help from aliens to crack those technologies.

5. FOR aliens to help the hacker, ALIENS MUST EXIST.

Proven.

Or is there some flaw in my reasoning ;-) If so, where? ;-)


RE: Hacking - how he did it
By Decaydence on 4/14/2006 8:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
Sweet God, you have done it. This post will go down in history as the first conclusive proof of Alien life.


RE: Hacking - how he did it
By PLaYaHaTeD on 4/15/2006 4:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
Proof by deduction. However, since your first step is wrong (the gov't *is* that stupid, except for that Bush guy ;-) ), the whole thing is wrong.

Plus, number 4 implies that aliens would also need help from the hacker... which doesnt make sense because if they hold the 'superior technologies', why would they need a human to learn and utilize what they would be more suited to utilize?

Why the hell am I even talking.


RE: Hacking - how he did it
By alexcurpas on 4/16/2006 2:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
The flaw is right in the beginning, when you assume that the US gov't is not stupid. Other than that, it's flawless!


RE: Hacking - how he did it
By peternelson on 4/16/2006 2:47:55 PM , Rating: 2

Er yup, you guys got me. I think that was precisely what I was alluding to. It's called "sarcasm". I mean if ONE hacker not a team of them with distributed keycracking (and without help from alieans) could gain entry to all these computers, that would tend to mean that the US need to beef up their IT security or else some terrorist could do the same type of attack. Someone should be fired for letting it happen.


Any UFO Evidence?
By TomZ on 4/14/2006 2:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
So, for all that hacking, did he ever find any UFO evidence? Inquiring minds want to know!




RE: Any UFO Evidence?
By Mclendo06 on 4/14/2006 3:19:29 PM , Rating: 5
Well, to answer that, let's look at the facts:

1. Aliens prefer crashing their spacecraft directly into locations where the US military is the only entity that will find the wreckage.

2. The United States deals with Aliens as terrorists so they are held without lawyers or contact with the outside world inside secret Alien/terrorist detention facilities.

3. Aliens prefer to fly their spacecraft near Top-Secret US Military installations so that they blend in with all the other wierd-looking secret US aircraft prototypes. Undoubtedly, US test pilots have made reports about such encounters.

Based on these facts, I'd say that the odds are pretty good that if this guy managed to get into a lot of US systems, he probably found some pretty good evidence to support the UFO claim. Then again, maybe he's already decided that there are aliens that visit earth and so all he's been doing is finding information that doesn't disprove his belief. Yes, I think that would be it.


RE: Any UFO Evidence?
By geeg on 4/14/2006 4:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
If the aliens can come (and crashed on) to Earth then most probably they have the technological(?) ability to take their wreckage and get away/hide from us.

I think we are just cocky to think we would find/see/hear them if they had come..


RE: Any UFO Evidence?
By johnsaw on 4/14/2006 8:28:15 PM , Rating: 3
"...allegedly broke into 97 government computers"

And non-allegedly into a hundred more.
Probably he didn't find anything. Otherwise he would have hacked into a system or two and found what he had been searching for :)


why do they always crash?
By shoRunner on 4/14/2006 11:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
if aliens can make it all the way here in some sort of spacecraft from where ever they are from...why do they crash...i mean you'd think they'd be able to stick the landing if they could make it the billions of miles to get here.




RE: why do they always crash?
By shoRunner on 4/14/2006 11:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
maybe all aliens are asian women...(i kid, i kid)


RE: why do they always crash?
By Zelvek on 4/15/2006 12:17:29 AM , Rating: 2
LOL...



Please to any women who may be reading this don't hit me!


RE: why do they always crash?
By peternelson on 4/15/2006 2:33:49 AM , Rating: 2

Precisely the point I made, a spaceship that can come from even the nearest star system to earth can surely land itself.

The crashes are probably caused when our military SHOOTS THEM DOWN.


RE: why do they always crash?
By Griswold on 4/15/2006 11:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
Isnt it obvious? When you fly into a cloud of smog with such a sensitive and sophisticated machine, something will fail - be it the engines (whatever they may use to propel their crafts) or the pilot.

This also explains why all the alien space crafts crash in the western part of the USA - in proximity of Los Angeles, the home of smog!

Now that I said it, maybe the smog is the secret masterplan to counter an alien invasion! Ingenious, those bastards of the oil industry!

There you have it, its all explained.


RE: why do they always crash?
By peternelson on 4/16/2006 2:52:15 PM , Rating: 2

As we are always told, statistically speaking, flying is the safest form of travel. When they don't mention is that those stats are in respect of deaths per total distance travelled. It's well known that most air disasters and fatalities occur on either take off or landing.

It seems we can extrapolate that to several lightyears without problems (not much to crash into) and for aliens to reach our planet they must have succeeded in taking off ok.

It's the landing that's the tricky part ;-)

Especially when some guy in a jet is shootin heat seeking missiles at you.


97 government computers!
By Deadalus on 4/14/2006 2:58:13 PM , Rating: 3
97 government computers! How did he manage that?

If he's that good, I'm surprised he hasn't been offered a job by the government... either that or the computers were really insecure and someone needs to be fired!




RE: 97 government computers!
By bamacre on 4/14/2006 3:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
Probably the latter.


RE: 97 government computers!
By theslug on 4/14/2006 4:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
There's no reason to give a job to a criminal when there are plenty of law-abiding citizens capable of performing the same tasks. Unless it's in lieu of jail time and he's not being paid for it.


RE: 97 government computers!
By Zelvek on 4/15/2006 12:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
Actualy it is not unheard of to hire the person who as hacked your system in order to beter strengthen it.


RE: 97 government computers!
By alexcurpas on 4/16/2006 2:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know, if I'd be hiring highly qualified techies, I'd be looking for the *unbeliever* kind. It's quite fascinating to see how many talented, gifted people are believers though, and I'm not talking just UFO's but paranormal phenomena, superstitions, religion, etc. Odd.


damage
By tobrien on 4/14/2006 3:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
what sort of stuff did he do to cause $700k worth of damage?




RE: damage
By WileCoyote on 4/14/2006 4:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
Probably labor costs - I'm just guessing (based on my experiences) that the in-house tech staff was too incompetent to fix the security problems, especially since they let it all happen in the first place. As a result, they had to hire knowledgeable/skilled third-party tech support (ie contractors) to come in at $200/hr to fix it.


RE: damage
By tobrien on 4/14/2006 4:57:50 PM , Rating: 2
that makes sense.


RE: damage
By Tsuwamono on 4/14/2006 5:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks most likely it. A small child with a basic understanding of programming and IP/TCP networking could probably hack into alot of government databases. Ofcourse it would be alittle more challenging to break into NASA or Navy databases especially 97 of them. However this just proves how terrible their security is.


RE: damage
By Wwhat on 4/14/2006 9:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
What are they going to say 'he broke into our poorly protected computers and did nothing but look and no harm was done'?
Obviously they spice it up a bit, the defense lawyer should point out that he did 800K of free security testing though and ask the government for 100K in late fees in light of their failure to comply with the unspoken understanding that his client since he did no harm would be left alone :]


That lawyer is blowing smoke out his arse
By gsellis on 4/15/2006 8:47:02 AM , Rating: 2
What a crock of bull. He is just trying to game the system so his client does not get sent to the US for trial. Gitmo is reserved for unlawful combatants. That would be guys with guns on a battlefield who are not part of an army.




By Griswold on 4/15/2006 11:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
Yea. Thing is, would you trust the US government enough to turn yourself over without raising this question? I surely wouldnt. Once you're there, you're screwed and nobody is gonna get your ass out of there for quite some time.


RE: That lawyer is blowing smoke out his arse
By pepsimax2k on 4/16/2006 7:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
>>[Guantanamo] is reserved for unlawful combatants

err... who?... oh, you mean thoes 12/13 year old, wedding guests, a few conscripted iraqi army members and various other innocent 'til proven guilty folk? riiightt... well, in that case, your guy who most deffinately *did* hack into some pcs doesn't even need your president to convince you he's a "bad person" does he? torture away, i say.


By peternelson on 4/16/2006 2:54:54 PM , Rating: 2

They will beat a confession out of him by threatening to deprive him of internet access for a couple of weeks.


By Viditor on 4/17/2006 9:59:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gitmo is reserved for unlawful combatants

That is it's intention, yes. However, it has gone beyond that in MANY cases...and there is absolutely no way of assuring that Guantanamo Bay is behaving legally.

The scariest that George W has done in his Presidency is to systematically erode one of the most basic tenets of the US legal system..."Presumption of Innocense".

When he chose to invade Iraq while inspectors were still on the ground, he presumed Hussein guilty of having WMD before any evidence was given. This is of course exacerbated by the fact that his presumption was completely wrong!

The prisoners at "Gitmo" are examples of exactly the same thing...they are imprisoned and presumed guilty before any evidence is given. Further, he has insured that any mistakes in these presumptions are capable of being covered up. This is the kind of power that Emperors used to wield, and to fear it is unjust is a very sane reaction.

I am a US citizen living overseas among people who have long respected and loved the US (though they have always made jokes about us, just as we have about them). I have watched that respect dwindle away to fear and disgust over the last few years...it's one of the saddest things I've ever experienced and I must say that I'm a bit ashamed (even though I didn't vote for him). The only silver lining I can see is that at the end of this year the Republicans will lose the House and Senate, which will drastically reduce his ability to do much more harm.
JMHO


The scumbag deserves to be held at Gitmo !
By cornfedone on 4/14/06, Rating: 0
RE: The scumbag deserves to be held at Gitmo !
By Wwhat on 4/14/2006 9:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
You are a quite unreasonable person, how about we shoot a few babies as a warning to muggers too?
If all this guy did was peek (even if that caused accidental harm) then you should not compare him to people that hack with nasty intentions and you should catch those types and deal with those guys in a way that reflects their deeds and proven intent, and not just attack a basically innocent character.



By Wwhat on 4/14/2006 9:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
But of course if you are pro quantanamo then you probably also see logic in attacking a country completely uninvolved with the 9/11 events as a revenge against 9/11 and there is no saving you.



"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki