3 ms·
But surely that's the point, that their good faith concerns are unreasonable. It's completely clear cut - the guy broke into systems that no normal human being
by iuguy 16y ago
But surely that's the point, that their good faith concerns are unreasonable.
It's completely clear cut - the guy broke into systems that no normal human being would go at. The level of security is irrelevant - if you commence a military act, surely a military response is appropriate, no?
Your points are completely valid but you're missing the view that is brought forward, that he's one of ours, he's not that bad a guy, and doesn't deserve the same as people in gitmo.
I don't agree with the view and I think that all things being equal he should serve a small amount of time in the US, but thats not going to happen. Either he's going to serve a large amount of time in the US (from the perspective of the Brits) or he's not going there.
It's especially interesting for me because this happened before with some inside traders at natwest. It'll be interesting to see if this happens again.
- tptacek 16y agoI worry that we're talking past each other, because I don't think the US thinks he deserves the same as people at Gitmo either.
- iuguy 16y agoI think you're right (that we're talking past each other). The UK perception seems to be based on a lack of assurances that he won't end up in an orange jumpsuit, as fetching as he may look in one. The US is unable to provide said assurances because the people looking to extradite him are not in a position to make that type of a deal (as far as I know, if I'm wrong please say so). Bear in mind that at the time he committed said acts the US would have generally considered it an act of hacking, whereas now it could be considered an act of terrorism or even an act by an enemy non-combatant. The grey area seems to be the thing that's causing the block. If the US said, "He'll serve 5 years in a minimum security jail for hacking" then I'm sure the resistance would be over.