Sting, singalong to "specially composed lyrics". He'll get life.
Janis Sharp, mother of US extradition target Gary McKinnon, has hatched plans to conduct a sing-in protest to coincide with President Barack Obama's upcoming visit to London. The demo is planned to coincide with Obama's visit to attend the G20 conference at the beginning of April, where global leaders will meet to discuss the …
Sting, singalong to "specially composed lyrics". He'll get life.
... they don't extradite you to the US for naff recordings
Ma McKinnon is gonna be pissed off if Gary is shipped the America to face the music.
Actually, I've heard enough about McKinnon without the music. The only reason I support him is that Elizabeth I methods (invention of crimes, arrest is proof of guilt,...) are not good enough in the reign of Elizabeth II. If that message gets over to Obama and Brown and their successors then life was worth living.
While we are off this topic, how did Tariq Aziz, a halfway-believable mouthpiece of a tyrannic regime, and Chemical Ali, a leader of a genocidal raid, end up with the same sentence - they both were involved in a state decision to kill to set an example with 42 resellers who tried to get high prices after a UN-embargo.
What's the connection? - that idiocy of nations is not the same as responsibility of individuals, and mercy - or nothing - is better than irrational international law.
I think Janis Sharp/ Ma McKinnon prefers British Music.
Gary should stay in the U.K to face a Jury of his peers as his right under the Magna Carta.
Good idea the "Sing In". (Or is it a"Sting In")
Maybe Graham Nash & Dave Crosby will lend a hand.
Count me in
At the sing-in they can take up a colection to pay for Gary's Asswipe illness. Then he'll be all better so he can be prosecuted for his crimes.
"Gary should stay in the U.K to face a Jury of his peers as his right under the Magna Carta."
The Magna Carta says that if you violate another country's laws and cause real damage (be it physical or financial), you have the right to be tried in your own country? Funny, I don't remember that part. I do see this:
"No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
But nowhere does it say that you can be tried in your own country for violating another country's laws. In fact, "or by the law of the land" explicitly states that a person may not be tried by his peers.
The facts are simple. He was purposely and voluntarily accessing US government computer systems without authorization, and he knew exactly what he was doing. The reasons for his actions are irrelevant. The incompetence of the administrator(s) for the machines he accessed is irrelevant. He knowingly accessed the systems without authorization. Period. As for the Asperger's Syndrome, I seriously question the authenticity and accuracy of that diagnosis since it only came up once all other efforts to escape extradition failed. In other words, it's a little too convenient and coincidental.
That said, I hope he's not extradited. I don't want my tax dollars paying to try this idiot (and if convicted, to keep him housed, clothed, and fed). You guys can keep him.
"The reasons for his actions are irrelevant"
His motivations are relevant. Maybe not in the disneyland justice system, but in the UK they are.
"The facts are simple. He was purposely and voluntarily accessing US government computer systems without authorization"
Are you saying people should be locked up for decades under trrrrrist legislation for visiting "unauthorised" pages at http://www.cia.gov for example? Get a life.
These numbnuts left their computers wide open in a public space - trespasser? arguable - trrrist? fuck off.
"His motivations are relevant. Maybe not in the disneyland justice system, but in the UK they are... Are you saying people should be locked up for decades under trrrrrist legislation for visiting 'unauthorised' pages at http://www.cia.gov for example? Get a life... These numbnuts left their computers wide open in a public space - trespasser? arguable - trrrist? fuck off."
Wow, what a spectacular piece of ignorant rambling showing absolutely no common sense or comprehension of simple thoughts. I never once called McKinnon a "trrrrrist" as you so eloquently put it (that would apparently be "terrorist" to the rest of us). Nor did I mention any sentence duration or a specific criminal charge. That was, apparently, something you conjured up using your imagination. And I'm sorry to say it, but your defense of him doesn't hold water. He admitted to accessing systems without authorization for the explicit purpose of attempting to access information he was not authorization to access. That's quite different than visiting a website. It is also NOT arguable that he trespassed. Even if the system administrators were incompetent and used easily-guessable or default passwords, it was STILL trespass. He knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was not authorized to access the systems, and he then proceeded to access them without authorization. That's textbook trespass. I suppose you think that if I don't have a fence around my property and don't keep my door locked, then you're free to come in, have a look around, watch my TV, eat my food, and generally make yourself at home? After all, without a fence, and especially with my door unlocked, my home must be open the the public, right?
Do I think McKinnon is a terrorist? No. But then, I never once said he was. Knee-jerk reactionists like you are just as bad as the knee-jerk reactionists in the government. Do I think he should be locked up for a significant duration of time? I haven't formed an opinion as to that because like you, I don't have all the facts. Unlike you, I won't make assumptions to replace the facts I don't have.
For those who think he shouldn't be locked up, and saying he shouldn't be extradited, ask yourselves this -- how would you feel if a US citizen hacked into the Parliament systems and started snooping around? It's not about national protectionism or embarrassment, it's about a crime being committed and responding appropriately.
"Do I think McKinnon is a terrorist? No"
Then why the fuck do you support him being extradited from a sovereign country under official threat of prosecution under trrrst* legislation? Under a foreign law that wasn't even extant when he did the "crime"? Are you out of your mind? I sure hope rampant sophistry becomes a crime in the future, you'll have a lot of "Ex post facto" time to serve. One of the prime duties of any government is to protect its citizens from the unjustified actions of hostile foreign powers, and they are conspicuously failing to do so in this case. This is not a "defense" of McKinnon at all, he has proved himself a bona-fide moron, but he should be nevertheless entitled to the customary protections afforded a British citizen. Argue that point once US soldiers start appearing at The Hague.
Listen. If you place a computer/network on a public network without protection, access from members of the public is no different whatsoever from visiting a website. Period. I feel maybe that you think ports 80/443 should have special privileges. If you or I search google and find a supposedly "protected" US government website for example that inadvertently and in error lets loose top secret details on how the CIA torture and "disappear" people and deny them due process, all behind a blank HTTP auth, exactly whose fault is it?
To refine your rather naff "house" analogy, it would be more like you exhibiting the contents of your living room in Central Park.
*Bush's word, not mine.
He's been tried by the media....throw it out and tell the yunks to f*** off.
Put the beer down and your righteous selves in his position.
Or show merkin justice the finger.
Your choice BITCH.
'aVE A NICE DAY Y'ALL.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017