politician tells lies
what a shock
the Lib Dems have been given a chance - fail to make the most of it and they will be a politically dead force for decades
Halting the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the United States isn't within the power of Britain's government leaders, Nick Clegg has suggested. Speaking about the controversial proceedings for the first time since becoming deputy prime minister, Clegg dropped a bombshell on McKinnon supporters arguing the forced transfer would …
""What I haven't got the power to do, neither has the home secretary, neither has even the prime minister, is to completely reverse and undo certain legal aspects of this," Clegg told Radio Five Live. "That of course you wouldn't want politicians to do. That's what we are looking at at the moment. It's legally very complex."
Ok, Mr Clegg, who then has such a simple power. Who is delegated it or elevated it by your spineless abdication of leadership opportunity?
And "completely reverse and undo certain legal aspects of this" is a pathetic red herring which does politics proud but do not serve the public voice and wish.
Please grow a pair if you want to be thought suitable material to stay in lead office, is sound advice for a rookie in the field.
OK, so Nick Clegg said that there was nothing that could be done about this, but look at how he said it. He clearly wasn't comfortable with what he had to say. Was this because he's completely reversed his previous ideas about stopping this? Possibly. Was it because he's been told that the extradition won't be reversed? Almost certainly. Before kicking the LibDems, you should consider two things in relation to this:
1) It is supposed to be Theresa May (the Conservative Home Secretary) that's sorting this out.
2) The LibDems are by far and away the minority stake(power)holder in this new government.
If your attitude is held up by others, then maybe this is the first sign of the Conservatives managing to get the LibDems to take the blame for *their* failures.
I asked William Hague as my MP about the unfair extradition treaty wit the US and he said he would change it if he became Foreign Secretary (he cited Australia as another where the terms are not reciprocal). All William has to do is rescind the treaty and go back to the old rules.
Wake up William - I can probably find teh letter where you said this.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
I think, while you are being a bit too charitable to Cameron's manservant, you have hit the nail on the head with:
"They haven't said they aren't going to halt the extradition, they simply seem to have come to the realisation, now that they have access to all the information, that it's not as straightforward as they perhaps first thought."
As is so often the case, the ConDems have had the luxury of sitting in the house, demanding XYZ and making promises to all and sundry. Then by some miracle, the situation changed and they are now in the hot seat.
All of a sudden, their grandiose claims and promises turn out to be impossible and Government returns to pretty much doing what the previous one did, with some tweaks by senior civil servants. You would think that *we* as a voting public would have learned from this, but we havent. We are still sold on brave promises and every 4/5 years we turn up at the polling booth believing this time it will be different.
Screams of an analogy to domestic violence but I wont go there today.
The fact is, Clegg is Deputy PM - such an important position we havent had one for years. He has less power than some of the MPs in his own party now. Cameron is in charge and is almost certainly going to use Clegg as his whipping boy for every unpopular decision. Its interesting that Clegg has authority when it comes to doing things Tory voters wont like but not for the rest of the time.
I am sure that deep down Clegg doesnt want to see McKinnon sent to Gitmo, but he isnt actually going to do anything about it. Politicans are good at words and claiming to be working on changing something but rarely does it happen.
If the Government really wanted to change the situation they would have. The fact that they havent, while changing other legislative hurdles, speaks for their true intent. So, in the end, McKinnon will either go to the US or he wont. It will be down to actors that the British public had no say in to decide his fate. Whatever happens the Camegg symbiote will claim it as a victory.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Why do people think politicians will actually keep the promises they made to get into government when they actually get there?
The Digital Economy act will not be repealed either, despite the howlings of the blues and the yellows at that one.
In fairness to them though, they are getting rid of the ID card scheme, and maybe they might have a look at the Police DNA database.
I don't think Nick Clegg is "at odds" with his previous position.
He previously said that the Home Secretary had the power to "enact amendments " - i.e. to change the laws.
He's now saying the the Home Secretary doesn't have the power to "reverse and undo certain legal aspects." - i.e. that the Home Secretary can't arbitrarily override Judges' decisions on what the current laws say.
Both are true.
His statements are not at odds with each other, it's just the element of personal consequences that have been made clear.
Nick Clegg said then "It's completely within the Home Secretary's power to ENACT AMENDMENTS which will make this possible" (i.e. it may not be legal yet, but the HS can change the law to make it legal)
He now says "Legally, we can't do it", or in other words nothing's changed from a legal perspective, it's just the willpower aspect of trying to change the law.
Sounds like somebody's had a quiet word in his shell-like that just because something's technically possible, doesn't mean that it's a smart career move to do so.
Penguin because they're not afraid to dive into deep water and face the consequences.
'Nick Clegg said then "It's completely within the Home Secretary's power to ENACT AMENDMENTS which will make this possible" (i.e. it may not be legal yet, but the HS can change the law to make it legal)'
Can the Home Secretary just arbitrarily "change the law"? Doesn't Parliament get a say in the matter?
I'm not too keen on the treaty that is being used to send the guy to the States, but that said he consciously hacked into their systems and now should face the consequnces.
His case has been discussed on El Reg several times, and fankly I am sick of hearing his mother on Five live bleating on about his 'condition'. No doubt she hopes that a British court will let him walk free with a metaphorical slap on the wrist.
Of course Nick clegg is finding out that it's easy to make promises when you don't think you're going to have to back them up. Perhaps he'll be more careful at the next election?
Couldn't we have a real source, please?
Surely the matter of preventing extradition isn't on any shaky ground whatsoever; When the guys with the cuffs turn up from the US you say "Errr, no." and send them home. You then phone Obama and say "That extradition thing... Yeah, we're not doing that. The last guy was hell-bent on turning us into a police state, and we don't like it. We'll need to renegotiate that particular treaty."
Maybe I'm just an idealist.
I don't think too many people on here give a flying f*ck at a rolling doughnut for McKinnon, it's the principle of the US trumping up the damages so that they can take one of our citizens so they can make an example of him for making them look stupid, without any actual evidence of the damages.
The idea that having to subsequently secure their servers with passwords cost them millions of dollars is not 'damages' in my eyes - it's something they should have done anyway.
Thery are pissed off because once again the material, high tech solution to everything (throwing money at it) has been proved to be a total sham.
They must have spent shedloads of money and boasted about how secure it all was before someone came along with a paper clip and picked the lock.
They are severly embarrassed and need to screw someone over who didn't have any part to play with their own fuck up.
Read the background. Nobody is saying he should not be prosecuted - what most reasonable people are saying is that he should be tried here (where he will get a just 6 months or suspended sentence for breach of the Computer Misuse Act) as opposed to 40-50 YEARS in an orange boiler-suit in the US (some states even want execution for him) - that added to the fact that the extradition agreement happened AFTER the hacking incident (and was not supposed to be retrospective).
I suppose you are one of those in favour of sending adulterous wives of Iranian men in the UK to Iran for trial too?
some states even want execution for him [citation please]
There are only 2 cases where exicution is an option in most states (and this is not even a state case, so state law need not apply):
Murder (even then it normally has to be "1st degree" or "premeditated"), Treason (doesn't apply since he is not a US citizen)
For a number of reasons, capital punishment is not as popular in the US as media would have you believe, not least among which being that actually having an exicution (with all the legal rigamore that has to happen beforeand) actually costs more then just locking someone up for life w/o the opertunity of parole. (FTR: I am against capial punishment, in all cases)
When he allegedly* "did the crime" the punishment was not extradition to the US -- it was trial and whatever was punishment decided if* he was found guilty. Since then the situation changed -- so actually he is prepared to "do the time" for his actions as originally stated.
Aside from that -- I hardly think that throwing someone into prison to be beaten and abused for a few years is a fitting punishment for walking through an unlocked door** of a US public building**** and looking around.
The US just don't like to be embarrassed and so are using a one-sided extradition treaty meant for serious criminals and laws meant for suspects of mass murder (or "terror" as the governments like to call it) to punish this guy for making them look like the incompetent fucktards they are.
*He's innocent at the moment. Perhaps if he has a fair trial we'll find out if he's guilty or not?
**Weak passwords and other lax security isn't worth calling security.
***This is stuff owned and paid for by the public -- before anyone makes an comparison to housebreaking.
This post has been deleted by its author
jesus, give the guy a break already. the USA really want him don't they - seems like they want him a bit too much and are making a bit too much fuss about all this which leads me to believe he did in fact find something very sensitive. the USA would be much better to just say, "yeah whatever, there's nothing to find (in relation to UFOs) anyway and he didn't find anything so sure, put him on trial for a hacking offence in the UK". instead they make themselves look like they are hiding something and will go to any lengths to avoid revealing it - interestingly, the french COMETA report (a 1999 high level French UFO report with evidence from many government and military witnesses etc) also concluded that the USA are guilty of a massive cover up of the facts surrounding the UFO phenomenon.
anyway, leave the guy alone - he's clearly harmless.
that's the problem. It's the fact that he's made America look stupid. The US Authoraties can either fess up and admit to the public how bad they were, or they can lie through there teeth and make some stupid Brit the scapegoat.
If he's tried in the UK, the US will have to prove the machines didn't have default passwords on. They wont and they're left looking stupid.
If he's tried in the US, they can make out that only a super genius could have got through the defences and as such should be locked up for life. They can then go to the public and say "We got him" and everyone feels like justice has been served. Machines will default passwords are still setup and life goes on as normal.
Nothing to do with the fact E.T. retuned and is dating Lindsay Lohan.
I haven't read of them complaining about the delay. I don't expect they want to back down, but wouldn't be surprised if they want to see the back of the whole affair.
Even to the extent of accepting a plea bargain, and giving him a token slap on the wrist. If he hadn't been fighting extradition, he could well have been back home long since.
S'ppose mobile phone business is falling a bit flat.
Guess Russian/Egypt grannies are worth a bit more than a cheap phone from Finland (Except, they're made in China/India nowadays).
Makes me effing angry, BTW.
Bad luck, Gary.
Is anyone really surprised by this? Looks like our new shiny ConDem Government bottled it.
It is entirely within the Home Secretary's jurisdiction to block this if so desired. The extradition treaty is so hopelessly one sided it should be repealed in any case. But for some reason, we musn't upset our 'friends' the Americans....
Welcome to no doubt the first in a long line of broken promises from our shiny new ConDem Government which no one actually voted for.
To be fair this really is a government no one voted for.
People voted for Tory MPs, Lib-Dem MPs, Labour MPs, Green MP (etc) with the idea that their constituency would be governed by the party with the most votes and the party with the most constituencies would get to run the country.
I doubt anyone voted for a ConDem MP....
I know very little about law so I can't comment on what Clegg has said. I wonder if, a year ago, he just said whatever he thought would be popular with voters (i.e. trial should be in the UK). Or maybe Clegg has learnt that it's his roel to be the USA's bitch.
It would be utterly, utterly inhumane to send him to the US.
If an Asperger's UFO enthusiast can penetrate your security, maybe you ought to employ the guy, you dumb fucks. (I'm talking to the US Govt here). You are morons.
Remember that footage of that US pilot who accidently "had a blue on blue" and killed British army people in a tank. It was like 'whoopsy!'. I was lead to believe, from news reports, that the UK had very little influence on the disciplinary action of these (accidental) murderors.
Britain used to rule a large chunk of the globe, a few centuries back. Now, they're role is clear; Britain is uncle Sam's little bitch.
...while I was asleep. I thought the last word on the powers of Parliament came from the 19th century bloke who said that it could do anything except turn a man into a woman. (And nowadays, given technical progress...)
Maybe Nick Clegg means that it's beyond his power to pass a law that his Lib Dem party members wouldn't like. But why wouldn't they like this? Is there any obvious reason why we should extradite people to the USA more readily than they do to us?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019