Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ The end of this countries world standing

Posted by: lordtup Jul 25 2009, 08:59 AM

I, like many others, stand appalled at this countries treatment of Garry McKinnon ( the young man awaiting extradition to the USA charged with computer hacking ).
This has now come to a head because the Honourable Member of Parliament for Thurrock has resigned over the matter.( A man of high principle ).
No one is arguing the fact that he has committed a crime ( though it questions their systems security ),but the crime was committed in this country and therefore should be brought before a British court.
The plain fact is that our Government is so sycophantic towards the bully boy called America that it is doubtful that they get out of bed without the Pentagon's approval.
It shows the complete duplicity of the whole wretched lot of them when we are quite prepared to harbour certain preachers of hate because extradition to their own countries would result in swift justice,yet we kowtow to the Americans because they have some ambiguous stranglehold over us.
I would like to think that all contributors to this forum supports the last ditch efforts of his family to prevent him going to jail in a foreign country for possibly 60 years.
I personally would not have a clue how to hack into another computer,yet I am aware that this post will be monitored and no doubt my details logged as a subversive.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jul 25 2009, 09:07 AM

QUOTE (lordtup @ Jul 25 2009, 09:59 AM) *
I, like many others, stand appalled at this countries treatment of Garry McKinnon ( the young man awaiting extradition to the USA charged with computer hacking ).
This has now come to a head because the Honourable Member of Parliament for Thurrock has resigned over the matter.( A man of high principle ).
No one is arguing the fact that he has committed a crime ( though it questions their systems security ),but the crime was committed in this country and therefore should be brought before a British court.
The plain fact is that our Government is so sycophantic towards the bully boy called America that it is doubtful that they get out of bed without the Pentagon's approval.
It shows the complete duplicity of the whole wretched lot of them when we are quite prepared to harbour certain preachers of hate because extradition to their own countries would result in swift justice,yet we kowtow to the Americans because they have some ambiguous stranglehold over us.
I would like to think that all contributors to this forum supports the last ditch efforts of his family to prevent him going to jail in a foreign country for possibly 60 years.
I personally would not have a clue how to hack into another computer,yet I am aware that this post will be monitored and no doubt my details logged as a subversive.


Certainly a thought provoking topic not least, to me, the thought that what would be worse -serving a sentence in a British prison or in an American one? Think I know which I'd opt for.

Posted by: GMR Jul 25 2009, 10:30 AM

I agree 100% that he shouldn't be going to America at all. If he, an ordinary person, can hack a military installation then the Americans are at fault and not the hacker. What would have happened if it was the Russian's or Chinese?

What also annoys me is that we are so readily prepared to bow to the Americans. This Blair/ Brown government is the worse we've ever had. The last worst government we had was a Labour government.

I hope he doesn't get sent to America and that Brown loses next year in the general election; good riddance to bad rubbish.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 25 2009, 10:30 AM

I don't applaud his family's efforts, I think what he did was massivley illegal, stupid, and pompous of him. He is not a young man he is i his forties and an adult. The computer he hacked into was a US one and therefore he should stand trial there. I think you make an intersting point about our extraditions to and from other countries though, and our government seems very contradictory with itself when it comes to these decisions.

Posted by: GMR Jul 25 2009, 11:10 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Jul 25 2009, 11:30 AM) *
I don't applaud his family's efforts, I think what he did was massivley illegal, stupid, and pompous of him. He is not a young man he is i his forties and an adult. The computer he hacked into was a US one and therefore he should stand trial there. I think you make an intersting point about our extraditions to and from other countries though, and our government seems very contradictory with itself when it comes to these decisions.



I disagree; he was wrong in what he did but sending him to America is not the answer. He won't get a fair trial and the Americans will use him to set an example. He should be tried in this country.

Posted by: Branston Pickle Jul 25 2009, 11:12 AM

People would probably feel a lot less strongly about this if we actually had an equal extradition policy with America. The Americans only have to have reasonable suspicion that the person is guilty. In contrast, if the British want to have someone extradited from America, we have to have a strong suspicion that they are guilty. This is much the same as the case of the NatWest 3 a few months back.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jul 25 2009, 11:33 AM

Must confess to mixed feelings - it's a choker to have to kowtow to the Yanks, certainly, but then - if he's a crim and they're prepared to keep him under lock and key at their expense, rather than ours, will people be too bothered? As I say, mixed feelings.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 25 2009, 11:37 AM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 25 2009, 11:30 AM) *
If he, an ordinary person, can hack a military installation then the Americans are at fault and not the hacker.


If I can get in undetected then can I rob your house?

Posted by: GMR Jul 25 2009, 11:51 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Jul 25 2009, 12:37 PM) *
If I can get in undetected then can I rob your house?



I didn't say I agreed with his crime, only that it should be dealt in this country as he committed the crime here.

If you robbed my house you were caught then you would be prosecuted in this country, not in America.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 25 2009, 11:58 AM

Yes you did, "you said if he, an ordinary person, can hack a military installation then the Americans are at fault and not the hacker". If that's not what you meant fine, we'll leave it there. However the crime wasn't commited in this country, it was commited from this country. I think this raises an issue that has not come about before as we haven't had such freedom across the world through the internet before.

Posted by: Iommi Jul 25 2009, 12:48 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 25 2009, 12:10 PM) *
I disagree; he was wrong in what he did but sending him to America is not the answer. He won't get a fair trial and the Americans will use him to set an example. He should be tried in this country.

I never realised you held our justice system in such high regard. tongue.gif I see nothing wrong with the extradition system provided it is equitable.

Posted by: lordtup Jul 25 2009, 01:10 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Jul 25 2009, 11:30 AM) *
I don't applaud his family's efforts, I think what he did was massivley illegal, stupid, and pompous of him. He is not a young man he is i his forties and an adult. The computer he hacked into was a US one and therefore he should stand trial there. I think you make an intersting point about our extraditions to and from other countries though, and our government seems very contradictory with itself when it comes to these decisions.

Well he's young to me and I accept your point,but this trial will be used for show purposes not enforcement of the law.

Posted by: JeffG Jul 25 2009, 02:40 PM

It's worth reading the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon about this. Apparently he was searching for evidence of UFOs and anti-gravity technology, so I guess he could plead insanity...

Posted by: GMR Jul 25 2009, 03:06 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Jul 25 2009, 12:58 PM) *
Yes you did, "you said if he, an ordinary person, can hack a military installation then the Americans are at fault and not the hacker". If that's not what you meant fine, we'll leave it there. However the crime wasn't commited in this country, it was commited from this country. I think this raises an issue that has not come about before as we haven't had such freedom across the world through the internet before.



OK; maybe I worded it badly. What I meant was that the Americans should have had a better system if it can allow an ordinary hacker to break into top security stuff. If any Tom, Dick or Harry can access their defence installations then the world is in trouble.

If a child abuser hacks into a British web site for child porn - from America, and it has happened - he is then prosecuted in America and not from here. The same if it was the other way around. He committed the crime in this country and this country's laws.

Posted by: GMR Jul 25 2009, 03:06 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Jul 25 2009, 01:48 PM) *
I see nothing wrong with the extradition system provided it is equitable.



Which it isn't. wink.gif

Posted by: GMR Jul 25 2009, 03:07 PM

QUOTE (lordtup @ Jul 25 2009, 02:10 PM) *
Well he's young to me and I accept your point,but this trial will be used for show purposes not enforcement of the law.



Exactly and that is wrong.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 25 2009, 04:38 PM

QUOTE (Branston Pickle @ Jul 25 2009, 12:12 PM) *
This is much the same as the case of the NatWest 3 a few months back.

The NatWest 3 defrauded their employers (a US bank) of £9.5m - pocketing £3.5m themselves. They fought hard against extradition - with all the same arguments - especially how they would be sentenced to a huge sentence in some horrendous US jail.

The result - they were sentenced to 37 months, less than six months into their sentence they were transferred to England - Wandsworth to be specific. No doubt they will be out soon (if they aren't already).


Posted by: Strafin Jul 26 2009, 11:16 AM

It's funny that on these boards people are complaining that the courts don't give out proper sentences, law breakers have no respect and know they'll get away it etc etc. On this thread the same people are saying how dare the US try and punish those who have wronged against it.

Posted by: GMR Jul 26 2009, 11:26 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Jul 26 2009, 12:16 PM) *
It's funny that on these boards people are complaining that the courts don't give out proper sentences, law breakers have no respect and know they'll get away it etc etc. On this thread the same people are saying how dare the US try and punish those who have wronged against it.



Sorry, but you are misreading it. We have no problem with people being punished; and they should be. However, the motives behind this current debate has nothing to do with justice but with the Americans turning this into a show trial. Also; the crime was committed in this country and he should be tried here. If the situation was reversed the Americans wouldn't send him over here.

So; yes... the courts don't give out proper sentencing.

Posted by: lordtup Jul 26 2009, 11:29 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Jul 26 2009, 12:16 PM) *
It's funny that on these boards people are complaining that the courts don't give out proper sentences, law breakers have no respect and know they'll get away it etc etc. On this thread the same people are saying how dare the US try and punish those who have wronged against it.

Quite simply it's because we don't deal effectively with our miscreants that we resent "johny foreigner" passing severe sentence over our own.
Maybe if we had a penal system akin to the rest of the world the criminal element may be less inclined to kick up a fuss over extradition.

Posted by: GMR Jul 26 2009, 11:48 AM

QUOTE (lordtup @ Jul 26 2009, 12:29 PM) *
Quite simply it's because we don't deal effectively with our miscreants that we resent "johny foreigner" passing severe sentence over our own.
Maybe if we had a penal system akin to the rest of the world the criminal element may be less inclined to kick up a fuss over extradition.



The trouble is we are too subservient to America. If they treated us the same then I don't think we would mind so much.

They say we are running out of space to house our prisoners; what about underwater? It wouldn't cost us anything and we will be killing two birds with one stone wink.gif

Posted by: lordtup Jul 26 2009, 02:12 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 26 2009, 12:48 PM) *
The trouble is we are too subservient to America. If they treated us the same then I don't think we would mind so much.

They say we are running out of space to house our prisoners; what about underwater? It wouldn't cost us anything and we will be killing two birds with one stone wink.gif

I assume we are talking about a purpose built undersea development as opposed to just chucking them overboard,but there again......

Posted by: GMR Jul 26 2009, 02:17 PM

QUOTE (lordtup @ Jul 26 2009, 03:12 PM) *
I assume we are talking about a purpose built undersea development as opposed to just chucking them overboard,but there again......



Really!!! You would go as far as that? A 'built undersea development"? You are a generous person. My idea wouldn't have cost the taxi payer anything other than the men to take them to the sea front. My idea would have also taught them a valuable lesson wink.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: Andy Jul 26 2009, 06:27 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 26 2009, 12:26 PM) *
Also; the crime was committed in this country and he should be tried here.


Surely the crime was committed in the US. If he'd hacked into an American bank and stolen $50m then the crime, ie the actual theft would have occurred in the US. The same principle is applied in this case as it's the US rules he's infringed when hacking into an American based system.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Jul 26 2009, 08:23 PM

QUOTE (Andy @ Jul 26 2009, 11:27 AM) *
Surely the crime was committed in the US. If he'd hacked into an American bank and stolen $50m then the crime, ie the actual theft would have occurred in the US. The same principle is applied in this case as it's the US rules he's infringed when hacking into an American based system.


Cyber crime is a tough one for the courts (see the current argument between Wikipedia and the National Gallery).

This case is, on the face of it, a crime committed against NASA and hence common sense would dictate American proceedings. However, as he was entering in from a UK computer the waters are muddied somewhat - my own legal knowledge falls far short of knowing what should happen to him.

Bear in mind this fella has Aspergers and this should be considered wherever a trial takes place.

I disagree that he wouldn't get a fair trial over here (in the US) but I also think theat the US are pushing their weight in extradicting him as they know they have a chance to. If this hacker is North Korean, they wouldn't even bother.

As for the prisons, they are just as crowded here. The governer of my current state (Arnie) is in the process of signing a deal to send a whol load of inmates to Michigan or some such place due to massive overcrowding. Not sure where he would go on trial and every state has its own laws which would dicate what could happen to him.

Posted by: GMR Jul 26 2009, 09:37 PM

QUOTE (Andy @ Jul 26 2009, 07:27 PM) *
Surely the crime was committed in the US. If he'd hacked into an American bank and stolen $50m then the crime, ie the actual theft would have occurred in the US. The same principle is applied in this case as it's the US rules he's infringed when hacking into an American based system.



American pedophiles who hack into or go into a British site are prosecuted in America. The same as if a British pedophile hacks into an American web site is prosecuted over here. The rules were changed at the request of the Americans. We don't get the same privileges therefore it is not an even playing field.

Posted by: Instigator Jul 29 2009, 01:39 PM

I believe he should be punished, but not under American law.

If he connected to the systems of a world superpower as easily as he says, I find it more worrying that they were not secure to this type of attack. makes you wonder what somebody with real intent could do.

Posted by: GMR Jul 29 2009, 01:43 PM

QUOTE (Instigator @ Jul 29 2009, 02:39 PM) *
I believe he should be punished, but not under American law.

If he connected to the systems of a world superpower as easily as he says, I find it more worrying that they were not secure to this type of attack. makes you wonder what somebody with real intent could do.



I agree he should be punished; there is no doubt about that. But not by the Americans. The crime was committed in this country.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Jul 29 2009, 04:22 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 29 2009, 06:43 AM) *
I agree he should be punished; there is no doubt about that. But not by the Americans. The crime was committed in this country.


Playing devil's advocate here but if I hacked into your bank account from my computer here and took your money, you'd be perfectly fine with the Californians prosecuting me? And as such if I struck a deal with them to say I won't do it again and they say okay, then that would be end of story?

I think there is as much relevance as to where the person/body is you commit a crime against, as to where the crime was committed. But then again that's just a point of view, I don't know the legal statutes.

Just want to make sure we're not saying that he should be prosecuted in the UK because we don't want the 'yanks' to put away one of 'ours'. Got to be consistent right? Works both ways?

Either way, I think any prosecution is ultimately undermined by the fact that he has a mental illness and this should require some form of treatment rather than a stint in clink (US or UK style).

Posted by: Strafin Jul 29 2009, 04:36 PM

QUOTE (Instigator @ Jul 29 2009, 02:39 PM) *
makes you wonder what somebody with real intent could do.

He had intent. We only have his word that he didn't want to do anything more sinister - and he's a criminal!

Posted by: GMR Jul 29 2009, 06:27 PM

QUOTE (Newbury Expat @ Jul 29 2009, 05:22 PM) *
Playing devil's advocate here but if I hacked into your bank account from my computer here and took your money, you'd be perfectly fine with the Californians prosecuting me? And as such if I struck a deal with them to say I won't do it again and they say okay, then that would be end of story?

I think there is as much relevance as to where the person/body is you commit a crime against, as to where the crime was committed. But then again that's just a point of view, I don't know the legal statutes.

Just want to make sure we're not saying that he should be prosecuted in the UK because we don't want the 'yanks' to put away one of 'ours'. Got to be consistent right? Works both ways?

Either way, I think any prosecution is ultimately undermined by the fact that he has a mental illness and this should require some form of treatment rather than a stint in clink (US or UK style).



Well; I think this is more about a show trial - in America - than about justice.

As I said in another post the crime was committed in this country so therefore it he should be prosecuted in this country. I gave a few examples in another post why the Americans would do the same if things were reversed.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 29 2009, 08:01 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 29 2009, 07:27 PM) *
I gave a few examples in another post why the Americans would do the same if things were reversed.

Nothing valid or concrete though to be fair, in fact not actual examples at all.

Posted by: GMR Jul 29 2009, 08:17 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Jul 29 2009, 09:01 PM) *
Nothing valid or concrete though to be fair, in fact not actual examples at all.



Actually they are valid; when an American pedophile accessed a British web site and was caught he was prosecuted in America. That is both valid and concrete. There was also a case many years ago where somebody stole money from a bank account using the computer; the stealer was in America and accessed a British web site. Again valid and concrete. This man had committed a crime and and he should be prosecuted in the country he is at. Even the lawyers who are defending the hacker are saying that he should be prosecuted in this country.

However, the Americans do have a right to extradite him to America if the British won't prosecute... but why are they not prosecuting him, that is the question? Because they struck a deal with the Americans; basically they - the British - are letting his crime go; which is against British law.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 29 2009, 08:38 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 29 2009, 09:17 PM) *
Actually they are valid; when an American pedophile accessed a British web site and was caught he was prosecuted in America. That is both valid and concrete. There was also a case many years ago where somebody stole money from a bank account using the computer; the stealer was in America and accessed a British web site. Again valid and concrete. This man had committed a crime and and he should be prosecuted in the country he is at. Even the lawyers who are defending the hacker are saying that he should be prosecuted in this country.

However, the Americans do have a right to extradite him to America if the British won't prosecute... but why are they not prosecuting him, that is the question? Because they struck a deal with the Americans; basically they - the British - are letting his crime go; which is against British law.

Sorry but that's not valid, no names, dates, case references, ar any source, it's at best hearsay. Good question though about why aren't we prosecuting.

Posted by: Iommi Jul 29 2009, 08:42 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Jul 29 2009, 09:38 PM) *
Sorry but that's not valid, no names, dates, case references, ar any source, it's at best hearsay. Good question though about why aren't we prosecuting.

I don't think GMR is quite right. In our legal system, there's a concept of 'in the public interest'.

Posted by: GMR Jul 29 2009, 08:48 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Jul 29 2009, 09:38 PM) *
Sorry but that's not valid, no names, dates, case references, ar any source, it's at best hearsay. Good question though about why aren't we prosecuting.



When I read things I don't keep a record - which would be impossible - to prove a point later on down the line. Because I haven't kept a record it doesn't make it not valid. It is valid because it is true, whether you believe it or not. I am sure if you researched it yourself you would come up with those facts. wink.gif

Posted by: GMR Jul 29 2009, 08:51 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Jul 29 2009, 09:42 PM) *
I don't think GMR is quite right. In our legal system, there's a concept of 'in the public interest'.


Good point; but in this case it has nothing to do with the "public interest" but the American interest. So we are forsaking our interest for the American one.

Just a matter of interest; why isn't it in public interest, in your opinion? Other lesser crimes have been prosecuted.

Posted by: Iommi Jul 29 2009, 09:14 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 29 2009, 09:51 PM) *
Just a matter of interest; why isn't it in public interest, in your opinion? Other lesser crimes have been prosecuted.

I never said, or thought, it was or wasn't. I don't know enough about the case to form an opinion.

Posted by: GMR Jul 29 2009, 09:17 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Jul 29 2009, 10:14 PM) *
I never said, or thought, it was or wasn't. I don't know enough about the case to form an opinion.



Everybody should be playing on a level playing field, this decision is political, nothing else. To suck up to the yanks and to show our 'special relationship' this hacker is being used a pawn; sadly is it a one way game.

Posted by: Iommi Jul 29 2009, 09:26 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 29 2009, 10:17 PM) *
Everybody should be playing on a level playing field, this decision is political, nothing else. To suck up to the yanks and to show our 'special relationship' this hacker is being used a pawn; sadly it is a one way game.

You might be right, but I understand (after doing a very quick swat) that he has even appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, but that has been rejected.

Posted by: GMR Jul 29 2009, 09:43 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Jul 29 2009, 10:26 PM) *
You might be right, but I understand (after doing a very quick swat) that he has even appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, but that has been rejected.



I don't think hacking is in the same class as anti-social behaviour, intimidation, murder, sadistic crimes etc etc so I am not surprised if the European Human Rights didn't cover him. wink.gif

Posted by: Torchy Jul 30 2009, 02:22 PM

Returning to the original post - I wondered who was the last Prime Minister to stand up to the Americans? I suspect it was Harold Wilson when he refused to join the US war in Vietnam. It certainly wasn't Thatcher.

And will Prime Minister Cameron stand up to them?

Posted by: Anon Jul 30 2009, 03:49 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Jul 29 2009, 05:36 PM) *
He had intent. We only have his word that he didn't want to do anything more sinister - and he's a criminal!



I must admit that I do not know the full story of this, however at a glance I belive that this chap has some kind of Autism, which doesn't make what he done right, however this would mean that it is highly unlikely that he had any Malicious intent in his actions.

Again I know very little about this subject so I could be wrong!

Posted by: Strafin Jul 30 2009, 04:21 PM

QUOTE (Anon @ Jul 30 2009, 04:49 PM) *
I must admit that I do not know the full story of this, however at a glance I belive that this chap has some kind of Autism, which doesn't make what he done right, however this would mean that it is highly unlikely that he had any Malicious intent in his actions.

Again I know very little about this subject so I could be wrong!

So what if he had killed someone then? Or burgled someone? Or hacked in to your bank account and taken your money? Would you have the same opinion that it couldn't be malicious?

Posted by: GMR Jul 30 2009, 06:49 PM

QUOTE (Torchy @ Jul 30 2009, 03:22 PM) *
Returning to the original post - I wondered who was the last Prime Minister to stand up to the Americans? I suspect it was Harold Wilson when he refused to join the US war in Vietnam. It certainly wasn't Thatcher.

And will Prime Minister Cameron stand up to them?



I disagree.... Thatcher often stood up to Regan. She did what she wanted to do and **** anybody who got in her way.

Posted by: GMR Jul 30 2009, 06:51 PM

QUOTE (Anon @ Jul 30 2009, 04:49 PM) *
I must admit that I do not know the full story of this, however at a glance I belive that this chap has some kind of Autism, which doesn't make what he done right, however this would mean that it is highly unlikely that he had any Malicious intent in his actions.

Again I know very little about this subject so I could be wrong!



He's got Asperger's Syndrome.

Posted by: GMR Jul 30 2009, 06:53 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Jul 30 2009, 05:21 PM) *
So what if he had killed someone then? Or burgled someone? Or hacked in to your bank account and taken your money? Would you have the same opinion that it couldn't be malicious?



You can't compare the crimes you've mentioned with what this hacker did. Each crime should result in a different understanding.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 30 2009, 07:02 PM

Anon's post has been edited, the original text said that people with autism are incapable of malice.

Posted by: GMR Jul 30 2009, 07:03 PM

QUOTE (Strafin @ Jul 30 2009, 08:02 PM) *
Anon's post has been edited, the original text said that people with autism are incapable of malice.



OK

Posted by: Torchy Jul 30 2009, 10:17 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 30 2009, 07:49 PM) *
I disagree.... Thatcher often stood up to Regan. She did what she wanted to do and **** anybody who got in her way.


I don't recall a single time Thatcher stood up to Regan...

Posted by: Newbury Expat Jul 30 2009, 11:50 PM

After seeing this on the wiki page for Gary McKinnon:

"The charge that he perpetrated "the biggest military hack of all time" is ridiculed by McKinnon who characterises himself as a "bumbling computer nerd" who undestructively accessed open, unsecured machines while under the influence of cannabis and beer, "

My take has now changed. They probably want to bring him over here to teach US college/university students that it's quite possible to use a computer no matter how wasted you are wink.gif

Posted by: GMR Jul 31 2009, 09:07 AM

QUOTE (Torchy @ Jul 30 2009, 11:17 PM) *
I don't recall a single time Thatcher stood up to Regan...



Maybe you don't, but she did. she also stood up to Bush. Remember the famous line "don't wobble George" She also stood up to the Europeans.

Posted by: J C Jul 31 2009, 09:36 AM

Looks like he lost his appeal, the extradition has been found lawful and proportionate

Posted by: GMR Jul 31 2009, 09:44 AM

QUOTE (J C @ Jul 31 2009, 10:36 AM) *
Looks like he lost his appeal, the extradition has been found lawful and proportionate



Yes, I saw that. It also said on the news this morning that the Americans usually leave well alone, but in this case they've jumped. But that was Bush, not Obama.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)