SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-just-want-to-make-sure-he-gets-a-fair-trial dept.
Lauri Love[*], in the UK, is facing extradition requests from three separate US court districts and a potential 99 year prison sentence for his alleged involvement in the online protests that followed the death of Aaron Swartz. Depsite no evidence offered by the US, the British courts have preliminarily agreed to extradition and his appeal will be on the 28th and 29th of November. Again, no evidence has been presented against him, but if he were tried in the UK he would be facing a maximum of 32 months in prison, not 99 years as the US is aiming for.
[*] According to Wikipedia's entry for Lauri Love:
Lauri Love is a Finnish-British activist charged extraterritorially with stealing data from United States Government computers including the US Army, Missile Defense Agency, and NASA via computer intrusion.
Previously: Lauri Love to be Extradited to the U.S.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Tuesday November 28 2017, @03:31PM (15 children)
So we are just assuming she did these things, right? He is an 'activist' and criminality seems to be the thing to do if one is an 'activist' these days. So lets restate the article summary in more traditional terms. He is a foreigner who infiltrated U.S. military information systems with the intent to plunder classified data and he (along with co conspirators) succeeded. He then made this information freely available to foes of the U.S. Stop with all the "cyber" shit and that is what he did, he is an enemy agent. Doesn't matter that he never physically entered the Missile Defense Agency, he is an enemy combatant, and an out of uniform irregular one at that so he can't even claim the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Spies, saboteurs and terrorists get punished most severely.
No evidence is needed to extradite him from an allied country since nobody on either side is questioning the facts of the case. Both sides agree the events happened and the accused was involved. End of case.
Now lets click through and see more stupid. The only defense the guy is attempting is that he shouldn't be extradicted because "Also at the hearing, Simon Baron-Cohen, a psychologist, testified that Love should not be extradited due to his diagnosed disorders which include eczema, psychosis, Asperger's syndrome and depression." In the name of everything Holy, can we at least agree this Kike needs to be gassed?[1] Raise yer hand if you are on the spectrum. If Spergs are legally declared mentally defective, most of us in IT are, to use a precise scientific term, fucked. And that is exactly the argument being made, he shouldn't face punishment because he is mentally deficient. If a mental condition leaves one not responsible for their actions those people don't typically enjoy the Rights of a free man. Giving spergs unmonitored Internet access would be irresponsible, 4chan would be decimated, reddit a ghost town and silicon valley decamped to greener pastures outside the collapsing West.
So go ahead and support yer anti-hero. Don't come bitching to me when the consequences happen, as day follows night. And yes Assange needs the same treatment. Snowden and Manning were American military (actual soldier or contractor bound by a formal oath of silence) so should be shot as simple traitors. I like some of Assange's leaks but it doesn't change the reality he is a foreign hostile agent working to undermine our national security. And Manning cutting his dick off to escape prison is almost poetic justice but he needed to get the bullet to send a message to others with access to secrets.
[1] Yes I know the shrink is simply an amoral piece of crap saying whatever the paying customer wants to hear and that is routine in modern "criminal justice" but damn, the consequences are astounding. If gassing is ruled out of bounds, how about a severe beating with truncheons behind the courthouse? Or seriously, can we start pulling the credentials of jerks like this?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 28 2017, @05:46PM (1 child)
"he is an enemy combatant,"
Oh, FFS, can we stop with this Cheneyesque bullshit? The term was coined for the purpose of doing an end run around the US constitution, as well as the Geneva conventions, and all other human rights accords, agreements, and treaties on earth. It was utter bullshit in 2001, and it's still utter bullshit today. If the accused did EVERYTHING that is charged, he's still just a freaking criminal.
Now - about his defense? Assburger? Hell, why we want to bring him here? Leave his lame ass in the UK, and let them deal with his assburgers.
I agree, regarding Manning. (tangentially, wonder how many balogna ponies he's been riding . . . ) I strongly DISAGREE regarding Assange. Snowden . . . sometimes morals and ethics override legalities. I'd like to think that I would have had the balls to do what he did. But, I'd probably have been to chickenshit. Snowden has had a much easier row to hoe. He never swore any oath to this country, so he didn't have to break any.
And, come to think of it, that's part of our problem. Our government seems to think that everyone in the world owes some sort of allegiance to it. Hell, it's Assange's and other journalist's JOBS to expose corruption. Assange did his job. Leave him the hell alone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 28 2017, @10:57PM
Any laws which forbid you from informing The People of the government's unconstitutional actions are unconstitutional themselves, so there isn't even a real question of legality here. Also, "sometimes"? No, always; unjust laws must be broken and discarded.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday November 28 2017, @05:48PM (5 children)
Lets unpack a little deeper. The information he was looking for was evidence a UFO cover-up. Fairness of trial and sentence may be considered in an extradition. The U.S. has a bad habit of inflating charges and inflating damages and eviscerated the right to an attorney years ago. U.S. prisons are known for sub-standard health care and near non-existent mental health care.
He has likely already suffered enough distress to make sure he won't do it again. The make sure, not extraditing him will most likely mean prosecution in the U.K. with possible prison time there. It seems likely that the legitimate goal of discouraging further infractions has already been met.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 28 2017, @08:47PM (2 children)
They could opt not to extradite him, but in doing so that would make it less likely that the US would extradite any of their wanted for trial as well.
Countries often place restrictions on what kind of sentences can be handed out. For example, sometimes they'll require that the government agree to not seek or use the death penalty in cases of murder in order to get the suspect extradited.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Tuesday November 28 2017, @09:37PM
It's going to be hard to get less likely than the practically zero current record. That is, no U.S. citizen who was currently living in the U.S. has ever been extradited under the current treaty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @09:12AM
Sometimes? Every time, it's a workaround for the laws against extraditing people to countries with the death penalty. If we were not to require this, or if the US government was to disregard such an agreement, the extradition itself would be against the law, and the people allowing it could be punished even though they did not know the US would disregard the agreement (because the agreement does not technically make the US a country without the death penalty, we only pretend it does).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:27AM (1 child)
> He has likely already suffered enough distress to make sure he won't do it again. [...] It seems likely that the legitimate goal of discouraging further infractions has already been met.
That's a legitimate goal in Europe, but it's not the idea under which the USA legal system operates. The USAians are a fairly vengeful bunch. Rehabilitation etc. are completely irrelevant, it's all about maximum possible punishment, without any consideration to proportionality or justice. Further compounded by the private prison system and using prisoners as slave labor (free market ahoy).
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday November 30 2017, @07:33AM
The maximum punishment, slave labor, etc. are nothing like legitimate goals anywhere though they are practiced in the U.S.
That's all the more reason not to extradite.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday November 28 2017, @05:57PM
What exactly are you so afraid of that you advocate violence, and extrajudicial murder as a solution to exposing government secrets?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday November 28 2017, @06:30PM (2 children)
Its already been unpacked for you:
That's it. That's all he did.
He Joined a protest (sitting in a chair) and posted some tweets clicked a button somewhere, posted a middle finger picture while wearing a Guy Fawkes mask or something.
Why can't our editors either reject or correct clickbait submissions like this? Or at least stop accepting submissions from ACs.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:47AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @09:15AM
No, he showed that the US military is severely lacking in IT security.
He was looking for UFOs FFS, not for military assets. He shouldn't be able to stumble on military assets when looking for UFOs. If he did, someone in the military screwed up big time. But more likely, he didn't, and it's just an excuse for the 99 years.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Tuesday November 28 2017, @07:07PM (2 children)
If Spergs are legally declared mentally defective, most of us in IT are, to use a precise scientific term, fucked. And that is exactly the argument being made, he shouldn't face punishment because he is mentally deficient. If a mental condition leaves one not responsible for their actions those people don't typically enjoy the Rights of a free man. Giving spergs unmonitored Internet access would be irresponsible, 4chan would be decimated, reddit a ghost town and silicon valley decamped to greener pastures outside the collapsing West.
The UK decision to deport him makes no sense but the ongoing requests for mercy aren't going to get any further than the requests for common sense or national sovereignty did. If the very long odds are beaten and he is allowed to continue to stay in the UK, and then if it is only because of his asperger's it will generate quite a stigma for others with the same affliction.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday November 28 2017, @11:10PM (1 child)
What?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday November 29 2017, @11:07AM
He's a dual citizen of the UK and Finland, but neither country is standing up for him on those grounds or any other. So his defense team has been lately playing up the Asperger's syndrome to mean because of that he is too defective to be extradited. I can't see how that can be done without making life harder for those "on the spectrum". Anyway, if the US had a case against him it would have presented it and had at least a preliminary trial in the UK. However, once they have him physically they can force a plea "bargain" [theatlantic.com] and thus do away with him, regardless.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.