MORE ON MCKINNON
here is a really excellent summary of the controversy surrounding Gary McKinnon’s extradition. This is by far the best account I have read on the issue, by Kevin Anderson from the Corante blog. Kevin Anderson is blogs editor for the Guardian. I haven’t asked Kevin’s permission to reproduce this, so I hope he doesn’t mind,, but it really deserves a wide readership.
I usually steer well clear of writing about anything political … …. … , but last August I made an exception because I was unsettled by the one-sided coverage of the case of British hacker Gary McKinnon.
I flagged up the post, with reservations, on Twitter last weekend and then, through a friend, I found out that McKinnon’s mother Janis Sharp had mentioned me on Twitter. She went on to call me a lazy journalist and accused me of “launching a smear campaign” for my own agenda. I’ve got a pretty thick skin, but when someone questions my professional standards, even if only with regard to my own blog, I feel the need to respond. Two, now three, blog posts and a few comments in response to attacks by Sharp on Twitter hardly constitute a smear campaign. I simply retain the right to look at the facts on my own and come to an independent conclusion.
I stand by my post. I did make one error, which I have corrected, concerning whether the extradition request was made after the Extradition Act of 2003 came into force. Much of the rest of the post relies on a British High Court ruling, which is available on the Parliament’s website.
My issue is not with Sharp or McKinnon. My issue is with my profession. Apart from some excellent coverage in the UK tech press, much of the coverage in the British mainstream press is deeply flawed. It is one-sided, riddled with errors, sensationalist and filled with the unsophisticated, unthinking anti-Americanism that is pervasive in British media. I expect this from the British tabloid press but, in this case, the coverage in the so-called quality press is almost indistinguishable.
The extradition treaty and the US Constitution
As I said in my original post, I understand the upset about the Extradition Act of 2003. It is unequal, although the inequality of the treaty is much more nuanced than is generally reported here. Channel 4 has an excellent analysis. It is one of the few rational, level-headed discussions about the treaty that I’ve found.
But while opposition MPs claim that following September 11 the UK government granted the US special extradition privileges to help bring terrorists to justice, Julian Knowles QC says that the imbalance is rather due to the specifics of the US constitution.
“They can’t reciprocate due to their Constitution,” Knowles told FactCheck.
The Fourth Amendment, part of the first 10 amendments that we call the Bill of Rights states that probable cause needs to be established. The Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Probable cause is “information sufficient to warrant a prudent person’s belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime”. In all honesty, probable cause is a pretty low standard of proof. A 1983 US Supreme Court ruling Illinois v. Gates “lowered the threshold of probable cause by ruling that a ’substantial chance’ or ‘fair probability’ of criminal activity could establish probable cause”.
The US, Europe and members of the Commonwealth need only a warrant for a person’s arrest. And Channel 4’s fact checkers rendered this verdict:
Opposition parties are right to say that there is an imbalance in extradition proceedings between the UK and the US in favour of the US. However, the reasons behind the imbalance are not due to the granting of special privileges for the US, as is claimed
It’s also relevant to note that the standard of proof that the US requires the UK to meet, probable cause, is also the standard of proof that was required to secure an indictment against McKinnon. The US is holding itself to the same burden of proof that it asks for US citizens to be extradited. There is some parity here, even if the treaty leaves an “imperfect reciprocity” between the US and UK.
It’s also worth noting that in the US the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the treaty. They said that it threatened due process and “seriously erodes the judicial review for individuals sought by the United Kingdom”. It sounds very familiar to criticisms here, but it also contradicts the impression that the US has retained excessive latitude to reject extradition requests from the UK.
Federal Sentencing Guidelines and McKinnon’s probable sentence
One of the issues that has the British media in a lather is that McKinnon would face disproportionate justice in the US. The indictment states that McKinnon is charged with “seven counts of computer fraud and related activity. McKinnon faces on each count a maximum sentence of 10 years of imprisonment and a $250,000 fine”. It goes on to say:
The indictment alleges that Gary McKinnon scanned a large number of computers in the .mil network, was able to access the computers and obtained administrative privileges. Once he was able to access the computers, McKinnon installed a remote administration tool, a number of hacker tools, copied password files and other files, deleted a number of user accounts and deleted critical system files.
Based on this, the British media says that McKinnon faces 60 or 70 years in prison.
However, McKinnon has been indicted in federal court, not state court, and US federal sentencing guidelines apply. They used to be binding, but since a 2005 US Supreme Court ruling, more discretion has been returned to judges. Here is a brief explanation from Cornell University Law School:
The Guidelines are not mandatory, because they may result in a sentence based on facts not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, in violation of the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 20 (2005). However, judges must consider them when determining a criminal defendant’s sentence. When a judge determines within his or her discretion to depart from the Guidelines, the judge must explain what factors warranted the increased or decreased sentence. When a Court of Appeals reviews a sentence imposed through a proper application the Guidelines, it may presume the sentence is reasonable. Rita v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 2456 (2007).
The sentencing guidelines are referred to in Lord Brown’s ruling, but they are rarely referred to in UK coverage. McKinnon was offered a plea agreement if he pleaded guilty to two of the seven charges.
From the ruling: “On this basis it was likely that a sentence of 3-4 years (more precisely 37-46 months), probably at the shorter end of that bracket, would be passed and that after serving 6-12 months in the US, the appellant would be repatriated to complete his sentence in the UK.” The ruling goes on to note:
19. The predicted sentence of 3-4 years was based upon sentencing guidelines themselves based upon a points system. The prosecution would recommend to the court a particular points level which the court would be likely to accept.
If he refused the plea, Lord Brown wrote McKinnon “might expect to receive a sentence of 8-10 years, possibly longer, and would not be repatriated to the UK for any part of it.”
Even without the plea agreement in place, McKinnon is unlikely to see a sentence of more than 5 years. Although, like the so-called NatWest 3, I would expect McKinnon to be offered a new plea agreement. Note,the NatWest 3 returned to the UK last November to serve out the rest of their 37 month sentence.
However, based on little more than speculation that a vindictive United States humiliated by McKinnon would seek maximum retribution, the British press have condemned him to the rest of his natural life in prison. They say that he has been branded a cyber-terrorist by the Americans. Except he hasn’t: The indictment doesn’t mention terrorism or terror-related charges.
In one of the examples of the British tech press doing the basic journalism that the general press should be doing, Sharon Gaudin of Computerworld quoted “Scott Christie, who was an assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey at the start of the hacking investigation, and was the first prosecutor brought into the case.” She writes:
McKinnon has contended that if extradited to the U.S., he could be treated as a terrorist, tried in a military tribunal and ultimately imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.
“Mr. McKinnon has never been classified in that manner or treated in that manner, as far as I’m aware,” said Christie, who now leads the information technology group at law firm McCarter & English LLP. “He will be treated as a normal criminal defendant in the civil court system of this country. He’s a run-of-the-mill criminal with a run-of-the-mill crime.”
And as for the length of the sentence McKinnon is actually facing, Christie has been quoted several times:
Each charge potentially carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. However, U.S. sentencing guidelines would likely recommend a much lighter sentence.
A 60-year sentence is “extraordinarily unlikely,” according to Scott Christie, who was the lead prosecutor in the case in New Jersey before going into private practice. …
“His general exposure would be in the range of between three and five years,” he said.
And to be clear, we’re not talking about three to five years on each count but three to five years in total. Not to make too fine a point, but as Lord Brown said in his ruling, one of the factors taken into account in sentencing is the recommendation of the prosecutor. Christie is basing his estimate on the guidelines and the sentence he would have expected with a successful conviction. Three to five years. Not 60.
Christie hardly sounds like the cowboy cops of the American justice system baying for the blood of a cyber-terrorist, as is portrayed without named quote or qualification in the British press. He’s never quoted because he falls outside the terror narrative of the British media’s reality-free McKinnon coverage. He’s too calm, too reasonable and too professional, not vindictive enough, so he’s just airbrushed out of the story. Yes, his quotes should be balanced by other views, but as the person first given the job to prosecute the case, his point of view is relevant and, I would argue, essential to the balanced reporting of this story.
Guantanamo is irrelevant in this case
The British media have created two fantasy prison scenarios for McKinnon. The Scotsman at least realised he wouldn’t be sentenced to Guantanamo but instead suggested that he would most likely serve in a horrific ‘Supermax’ prison in Virginia. The only problem as Kevin “Dark Dante” Poulsen (who has even less patience with the comic book coverage of the case than I do) notes the Supermax facility The Scotsman picked, seemingly at random from the map, is actually a Virginia state facility. The truth is that McKinnon faces charges in the federal court system and would serve any sentence in a federal prison.
While grounded in the horrors of the Bush administration’s extra-judicial atrocities, the coverage of the McKinnon is based on fantasy not facts. Is it possible that, in some fit of vindictiveness, US authorities could have exiled him to that extra-judicial black hole? Almost anything seemed possible during the Bush years. However there is a key difference in McKinnon’s case. He has, and always had, what the Guantanamo detainees have fought for years to get: An indictment in a US civilian court. If you look at the case of “enemy-combatant” Jose Padilla and the detainees, the Bush Administration fought to keep them from having access to US courts in the first place. McKinnon’s case started in the civilian judicial system and that’s where it’s going to stay.
Due process and human rights
In speaking with someone recently about the extradition treaty, I was told that the inequality of the treaty rendered the facts of the case irrelevant. The principles of equality and fairness were more important than the facts of McKinnon’s case or the coverage. I disagree.
The upset over the perceived inequality of the extradition treaty is grounded in feelings of nationalism and feelings of a loss of sovereignty. You hear echoes of anger over Tony Blair walking lock-step with George Bush into Iraq. People here complain about the UK being the 51st State of America. One person even said it felt like “the big, bad USA was lording over our tiny island”. I also know how much the British people value a sense of fairness, and the treaty seems to be inherently unfair.
But there are other issues here, issues that are just as important to democratic countries. One of these core, fundamental values is due process.
If you want to go back to the Magna Carta for a definition of due process, it says: “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”
In McKinnon’s case, obsessive coverage of the treaty inequalities has obscured the fact that McKinnon has had access to British and European courts. If the treaty was truly as unfair as the press makes it out to be and the British public now seem to think, McKinnon wouldn’t have had access to appeals. The US would have simply shown up with an indictment and left with McKinnon. The coverage makes the treaty situation appear like some legalised version of extraordinary rendition, where the US can just swoop in and pick up anyone they want. That’s clearly not the case.
Has McKinnon been denied his day(s) in British courts? No. His supporters might not like the outcome, but that should not obscure the fact that the courts here have ruled, thus far, that the extradition and the plea bargaining process have not violated McKinnon’s rights. That has been reaffirmed by court after court in the UK. This is how the legal system works.
Should he be tried in the UK instead of the US? The law of this is relatively straightforward and wasn’t a novel invention created by the Extradition Act of 2003. In most international cases, the jurisdiction for prosecution is determined by the location of the victim, not the criminal. If US hackers broke into British computers, they would be subject to British, not American law. Writing in the Times, Home Secretary Alan Johnson said:
The court was equally clear that he should be tried in America because the crimes he is accused of — although they were conducted from a computer in his bedroom in the UK — did not remotely affect people in this country. They affected critical government security systems in America.
This is why the Crown Prosecution Service won’t bring charges. No British victim. No British crime.
Is McKinnon’s case really the perversion of justice that his supporters make it out to be? Has he been denied appeals and access to British courts? Has he been denied due process by the British legal system?
PR perverting justice
Just as with the NatWest 3 case, the London PR machine has played a significant role in packaging this case for a pliant press. When I wrote last year drawing comparisons between McKinnon’s case and the NatWest 3, I had no idea how right I was. At the BBC News website, Caroline McClatchey writes:
And it’s no surprise to discover there is some PR professionalism in the campaign. London-based PR agency Bell Yard is working “pro bono” (free) for the McKinnon campaign. It has experience in this field, having represented the “NatWest 3″ - three British bankers who were eventually extradited to the US on fraud related charges. The agency was unavailable for comment for this story.
The brand masters must be sitting back with some satisfaction that they’ve managed to take the court case of a confessed cracker and turned it into a Live Aid event. I know that this happens frequently on both sides of the Atlantic, but this case is an egregious example of the triumph of spin over the facts of a case.
Now anyone facing extradition has a ready-made recipe to truly pervert the course of justice: Just add spin. Furthermore, opening the British or US legal system to political pressure is a dangerous game. The sense of injustice over extradition is now moving British politicians to manipulate their legal system for the benefit of a single individual. It opens up avenues for abuse that can be exploited not just by people you might like or sympathise with, but also by people whose political views you detest. The source and political inclination of the manipulation doesn’t make it right.
As I have said, my issue is not with McKinnon. My issue is with my profession. British journalism believes in campaigns and they love the narrative of the small guy against the big bad US. They have painted him as the hapless victim of US heavy-handedness while committing no crime but apart from an over-active curiosity. But long ago this campaign lost touch with the facts of the story.
McKinnon says he was looking for evidence of UFOs and alien technology. He may not have found any, but he has succeeded in creating a parallel world. There is the world of the facts and findings of the case available for anyone to see in court documents and rulings, and then there is the fantasy world created by McKinnon and his supporters. McKinnon’s world has been embraced, almost without question, by a credulous British media. Sensing a well-selling story, the media here have become McKinnon’s unquestioning advocates. Opportunistic politicians, a garden-variety pest the world over, have hopped on the McKinnon bandwagon. Their only source is the tireless, and in this case misguided, campaigners in the British press. Tony Blair was lampooned as Bush’s poodle. Now, the fierce watchdogs, defenders of justice and democracy in the British press have become the lapdogs for a confessed cracker.
The view of McKinnon as a vulnerable victim of American rough justice relies on easily refuted distortions of the truth propagated by the media. In the real world, he’s not facing anything like 60 years if convicted, but 3-5. In the real world, he could have served six to 12 months in US custody had he accepted the written plea agreement. In the real world, US prosecutors like Scott Christie speak with quiet, measured professionalism. He is not the rabid American bully that has become the standard caricature in the British press. If you’d like a view of the real world from a UK perspective, read Stuart Turton’s look at the case in PC Pro, another example of the British tech press presenting a balanced and accurate picture of the case where the general press has failed.
I’ll end with one more quote from Christie from an Australian computer security site looking at London Mayor Boris Johnson’s recent column supporting McKinnon (see above reference to opportunistic politicians). In it, Christie says:
[McKinnon] has created this cause celebre status in order to appeal to folks who will beat the drum on his behalf and they conveniently ignore the facts of the situation and the entire nature of his conduct. I think that, unfortunately, it lends some credence to the individuals who are painting McKinnon as a victim, to have the mayor of London weigh in as part of that team … people are resorting to a distortion of the facts in order to further his celebrity status as a victim. It’s troubling.
With that, I’m through writing about McKinnon. You may have a different view of the case, and the only thing I ask is to follow the links in this post. Look at the evidence. You may come to a different conclusion than I have, but at least you’ll know the facts. Welcome to the real world.
On the question of probable 70 year sentence, it is worth repeating the point I made yesterday:
Back in 2003 there were the same lurid arguments about Brett Edward O’Keefe who did exactly what mcKinnon did, and the press talked up his probable 30 year sentance:
the reality:
How was this accomplished:
Comment by Andy Newman — 11 August, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Andy, the Socialist Unity brand is now a car crash, you’ve lost the plot.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 15 August, 2009 @ 9:21 am
Andy, for fuck’s sake stop this crazy shite now! You’re making yourself a fucking laughing stock!
Comment by Communist — 15 August, 2009 @ 11:27 am
I think you have made your point, we all disagree, may be time to let go on this one.
Comment by Derek Wall — 15 August, 2009 @ 11:37 am
Andy, give it up! No-one agrees with you.
Take Derek Wall’s tip and get involved in some of the other more important debates on this site and stop obsessing over this crap.
Comment by Someone else pretending to be a non-partisan bystander — 15 August, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Since the McKinnon stuff has moved to this new post, I’m reposting the links and argument I noted in the previous one.
I can’t imagine any real person calling themself a socialist to be so crazily in love with the US legal system and the imprisonment of some dude who broke into the US MILITARY computers.
As for the “rule of law” - it is an absurd abstraction, as though the “law” has dropped from the sky like the Ten Commandments and wasn’t written by men - primarily rich, white men of a Christian persuasion. But, if what is meant is that everyone should be treated the same, then surely supporter of McKinnon’s extradition and imprisonment would be much more upset about the world’s biggest hackers and system disrupters - like Russia, who used cyberwarfare against Georgia:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2539157/Georgia-Russia-conducting-cyber-war.html
Or the US, which is in the process of creating a “cyberczar”, as this article from the end of May in the New York Times makes clear:
“The Pentagon plans to create a new military command for cyberspace, administration officials said Thursday, stepping up preparations by the armed forces to conduct both offensive and defensive computer warfare… The decision to create a cybercommand is a major step beyond the actions taken by the Bush administration, which authorized several computer-based attacks but never resolved the question of how the government would prepare for a new era of warfare fought over digital networks.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/politics/29cyber.html?_r=1
Or this article, which noted:
“When American forces in Iraq wanted to lure members of Al Qaeda into a trap, they hacked into one of the group’s computers and altered information that drove them into American gun sights.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/us/28cyber.html
Or this article about the invasion of Serbia and plans to use cyberwarfare:
“As computers revolutionize many aspects of life, military officials have stepped up development of cyber weapons, suggesting soldiers at computer terminals could invade foreign networks to shut down electrical facilities, interrupt telephone service, crash trains and disrupt financial systems.”
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27a/021.html
of course, it’s not just the US and Russia - it’s also China, which is in the arena of cyber-warfare, challenging the US’ ability to hack their computers and testing out their own offensive weapons:
“China has developed more secure operating software for its tens of millions of computers and is already installing it on government and military systems, hoping to make Beijing’s networks impenetrable to U.S. military and intelligence agencies.
“The secure operating system, known as Kylin, was disclosed to Congress during recent hearings that provided new details on how China’s government is preparing to wage cyberwarfare with the United States.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/12/china-bolsters-for-cyber-arms-race-with-us/print/
Of course, none of this is really important in any discussion of computer hacking. We shouldn’t worry about the utter hypocrisy of the US prosecuting this one guy, or about imperialism or any of the bigger questions that people have indicated. Instead, what should exercise us should be “law and order”. We need more cops, more arrests, more anti-social criminals in prison!
Or maybe we could be socialist about it and suggest that the real hackers who ought to be imprisoned are the US military, including Kevin Poulson, who works for them as a “security expert.”
Comment by redbedhead — 15 August, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
I think you are and I think you’re also “Kareem” in your spare time.
What I don’t understand is why?
Comment by Someone else pretending to be a non-partisan bystander — 15 August, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
This obsession is becoming more disturbing than quixotic.
Comment by Liam — 15 August, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Andy from you under your own name at (1) “On the question of probable 70 year sentence, it is worth repeating the point I made yesterday”
That’s odd, there were no comments under your own name on this yesterday Andy.
But the date of your “post” is given as 11th August - four days before the posting of the article???
Comment by Someone else pretending to be a non-partisan bystander — 15 August, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
“Do the US govt ever have the right to prosecute anyone? Or does the fact that it is an imperialist govt mean that it can never act in a way that socialists would agree?”
Pretty much - no. It’s not just imperialist in some abstract sense. It’s laws are constructed to penalize the poor over the rich (take a look at laws and sentencing for crack vs powder cocaine, for instance; or the response meted out to those who couldn’t pay their mortgages vs those banks and corporations who couldn’t cover their debt loads), it is racist (remember New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina?), it is hypocritical (the state can engage in massive amounts of hacking, they can monitor our use of the internet and telephone lines without warrants, they can arrest people and withhold evidence for “national security reasons” while pipsqueaks like McKinnon face the heavy arm of the US “justice system”)
America has the highest rate of incarcerations on the planet, not because it is better at stopping criminals but because it has defined most of the activities of its population as criminals, particularly the poor and the black. More black men will end up in prison than end up in college.
Comment by redbedhead — 15 August, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
This a very good deatiled account of why the USUK extradiion treaty should be opposed. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm
Maybe Andy should publish this instead?
Comment by duncanB — 15 August, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Andy, how can you post a comment responding to an article four days before the article itself has been posted?
Comment by Someone else pretending to be a non-partisan bystander — 15 August, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
On the other hand, if you posted the comment (1) today, which name did you use when you made the comment that you refer to when you say: “It is worth repeating the point I made yesterday.”?
Comment by Someone else pretending to be a non-partisan bystander — 15 August, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
So ignoring the McKinnon business itself for a moment, do I understand correctly the Guardian blogs editor who by his own admission usually keeps quiet about anything political on his private blog has decided that this issue is the one where a brave stand against the way the media cover stuff is in order? And now we get a “socialist” endorsing that view?
Comment by christian h. — 15 August, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Andy are you OK? The decision to publish this series of articles is worrying - they have nothing to do with socialist unity but only serve to undermine the credibility of this site.
The evident fascination with ‘hacking’ and Mckinnon come across as a bit obsessive and suggests some kind of public psychological self-flagellation process is underway.
Or is it simply that our blogposting accounts been hacked? Your readership will happily accept a positive answer this question and we can all move on.
Comment by inf4mation@hotmail.co.uk — 15 August, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
So inf4mation,
Andy enjoys public humiliation every now and then and by taking the piss out of him, we’re doing what he wants?
An interesting theory!
Comment by Someone else pretending to be a non-partisan bystander — 15 August, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Bof**kingring! Andy man,this McKinnon fellow is obviously not shuffling with a full deck,tell you what though if I get in trouble I wouldn’t mind having his mum on my side.
Comment by ScotinLondon — 15 August, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
non-partisan - McKinnon isn’t a racist murderer or a rapist. Those are non-sequiturs. He is a mentally troubled man who broke into a US military computer. As for the military forces being part of the working class - that is hardly the same thing as the military machine, administration, equipment and command structure. What’s more, even though soldiers in places like Iraq, or Vietnam, are working class, we still support the anti-imperialist fight against them. We call on them to resist illegal orders and demand that they be removed - not that they have bigger guns, better organization and command structures, clearer missions objectives, etc. We don’t want the military to operate more effectively - we want to undermine it. I suggest reading some of the material on how socialists and radicals organized during the Vietnam War within the military. Or watch the excellent documentary “Yes, Sir. No, Sir”. Of particular interest is the information on the widespread use of fragging - killing superior officers. That, of course, is murder at worst, assault at best. Do you oppose that as well?
“Can you see the point? it is political nonsense to just list the things the US govt does that show it is hypocritical, warmongering, anti-working class, and then say therefore it can never carry out anything progressive-”
The US government will only carry out progressive acts as a result of pressure from the bottom up - as in the Voting Rights Act of 1963, of affirmative action legislation, because of the Civil Rights Movement and pay equity and better responses/services to sexual assault because of the women’s movement, gay marriage because of the struggles of the gay liberation movement. I’m afraid the progressive era of the bourgeoisie ended quite some time ago. Look at the difference of some of the responses by Roosevelt and those of Obama to the present crisis. Why did Roosevelt actually implement certain policies that were progressive? Because there was a mass Communist Party in the US, because of the even more massive labour and unemployed upsurge, etc. Not because Roosevelt the US aristocrat was any more progressive than Obama.
Comment by redbedhead — 15 August, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Redbeadhead everyone agrees with you except Andy. All of these points have been made to Andy time and time again, but he’s just not listening. He’s got this wierd, wierd, wierd obssession with McKinnon and an even wierder obsession with making up new names to post up the same old non-arguments about rapists, terrorists etc. The best thing we can do is just leave him to get over it. Eventually he’ll hopefully accept it and move on.
Comment by Bored with this now — 15 August, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Clearly the lad is off his rocker.
Everyone knows the UFO x-files are on the Airforces database and not the Armies!
This really is a silly debate.
Comment by Pete Shield — 15 August, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
This an excellent post, and one that addresses the blatant falsifications and rubbish spouted by the populist tabloid press I have highlighted many times before; this article would reassure any reasonable person on this case that based their opinion on those media fallacies.
But unfortunately the handful of hard core odd balls so still bleating on about the SU being wrecked and that everyone that disagrees with them being mental are not reasonable people.
And nor are they as numerous as they like to make out with just one poster “communist” clearly using at least 5 sock puppets.
Someone else pretending to be a non-partisan bystander
Fuck off Kareem
No platform CIA-supporting arseholes
Gary McKinnon is innocent
Gary McKinnon is our mate he hacks the CIA
All very sad tatics designed to stiffle an opionion they disagree with.
But when all is said and done even McKinnon admit he commited a crime; that he is a criminal who needs to be punished.
All of the rest is hot air.
Comment by kareem — 15 August, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
too bad, Kareem, that you can’t convince anyone who’s left wing of your law and order agenda.
Comment by redbedhead — 15 August, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
“so tell me again how bad is the US govt? Doh! that isn’t poltics, its radical liberalism- redbedhead”
The point is that the army is sent out by the ruling class to smash organising workers not defend them. It’s only if and when workers convince soldiers to support strikers as they did during the Russian revolution that we can win them to the left.
Tiananmen Square and the brutal CIA backed coup by the army general, Pinochet, against an elected government in Chile are just two examples of how the ruling class use the army to defend and maintain their exploitative class position.
There is also a huge chasm between the interests of the soldiers that were sent to Vietnam and the generals who orchestrated the napalm attacks on civilians. We defend these soldiers against the state that uses them to defend its imperialistic interests but we don’t support the imperialists.
We don’t support the US governments war machine and for that reason McKinnon should not be prosecuted for snooping around looking for information that could expose and oppose US imperialistic foreign policy.
Comment by Ray — 15 August, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
And interesting that “Kareem” seems so sure of the identity of these various psuedonyms.Come on then Andy, who’s “bored with this now”? Why leave him/her out of it?
Comment by Bored with this now — 15 August, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
And Ray and redbedhead. Surely, they’re all one and the same people? We should be told…
Comment by Ray — 15 August, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Andy, you haven’t answered the question about how you could post a response on the 11th to an article posted on the 15th.And you haven’t answered the question about your reference to a comment you made “yesterday” when you didn’t make any comments yesterday. (Not under your own name anyway)
And how is it that “Kareem” is so certain about the identity of posters?
Is he part of your “admin team”?
Comment by sadly getting drawn back into it again — 15 August, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
I have posted soothing organic reggaeton music from the barrios, above, Andy perhaps you should make use of it.
I am not one of those who wants to see Gary in jail in the USA, I appreciate that some crimes involving databases demand severe punishment but not this one.
Comment by Derek Wall — 15 August, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
Those arguing for tighter controls over the internet are the ones who are handing over our civil liberties to the state and private companies. In Australia a law is being proposed for ISP’s to monitor all communications over the internet so that so-called ‘Acceptable Use Policies’ are not infringed. This has been proposed by an unholy alliance of private companies and politicians.
What constitutes an ‘AUP’ could mean anything. If a US multinational owned ISP in Australia doesn’t want its users to communicate with those in a proscribed country such as Iran then that could mean breaking an AUP. Likewise, if an ISP decides that left wing or gay communications break an AUP then they could be banned. There is no chance of freedom of speech or sharing information without hindrance if private companies as well as the state are monitoring us and deciding, without any democratic mandate, what is and is not acceptable communication.
The US government has attempted to use cases like McKinnons to promote more censorship and snooping under the guise of anti-terrorism laws. It’s vital that everyone on the left opposes McKinnon’s extradition and any moves to further increase private and public control over our communication via the internet.
Comment by Ray — 15 August, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
This latest thread reveals a great deal about Mr Newman, but casts no new light on the McKinnon case.
Comment by J B Malone — 16 August, 2009 @ 1:18 am
I am sad to see ‘Socialist Unity’ supporting the US military against a non-violent misfit who hacked into a computer. Is there really any more to this than that?
Comment by Anthony James — 16 August, 2009 @ 2:09 am
Surely, this series of pure guff-based postings will convince Respect members vote this crank off the Exec? I mean, really, this guy would be welcomed open arms into Labour’s government as Secretary of Justice. What a fring nutter Andy is on this and most issues of substance these days!
Comment by Jaason Simmons — 16 August, 2009 @ 2:40 am
Good point Jason, can’t see anti-imperialist Galloway backing Andy’s lunacy here!
Comment by no-one in England agrees with Andy — 16 August, 2009 @ 2:49 am
For a national office bearer of Respect to effectively defend the integrity of American state power and seek to jail those who act to disrupt it’s war machine shows how far the party has now shifted.
The Respect Party that arose out of the anti-war movement now appears to have an element of it’s leadership obsessed by upholding the powers of the US military industrial complex.
Andy’s post/s on this topic can only be politically damaging to the party and seriously undermine the hardwork of so many contributors here who have tried to build what they saw as an authentic anti-war electoral alternative.
Mr. Galloway previously made a public statement that he was warned by the revolutionaty left to avoid getting too involved with Mr. Newman - perhaps he should have taken heed.
Comment by inf4mation — 16 August, 2009 @ 8:45 am
I agree with some of what you’re saying Inf4mation, but I see this more as an example of one of Andy’s occaisional eccentricities rather than an indication of a long-term right-moving trend.
As I ‘ve said before, I think Andy’s basically a decent left-wing socialist who supports and gives publicity to workers in struggle.
This McKinnon episode has been utterly ludicrous - we’re all pretty much unanimous on that - but hopefully, Andy will move on from it soon.
As to whether Respect allow him to remain in the party leadership after this bizarre affair, well that’s a matter for the members of that party, but to be fair, Andy hasn’t claimed to be speaking on behalf of Respect while spouting his nonsense on this subject has he?
I think a lot will depend on how soon Andy - and his various “alter-egos” - can get a grip and drop this idiocy.
Comment by Communist — 16 August, 2009 @ 9:47 am
You are right “Andy hasn’t claimed to be speaking on behalf of Respect” but he has been claiming to represent his own opinion.
This is one of the reasons it is all so damaging. Respect was built on being a principled electoral anti-war voice. This type of of public undermining of that position can only leave voters with the feeling that that Party representatives will say one thing for electoral purposes while keeping their real thoughts for their own ‘unity’ blogs. It builds the impression that Respect national representives opposition to the American war machine is in fact unprincipled. It helps make Respect representatives seem like politicians from all the other mainstream parties with their perpetual streams of hollow electoral words.
In the current internatioanl political context, for me there can be no justification based on socialist principles for arguing for the celebration of the power of the judicial arm of the US military industrial complex.
Surely some repsonsibility comes with putting yourself forward for representing the Respect party nationally.
I do however accept that one other plausible explanation might be that Andy is simply playing some kind of cybernet political ‘unity’ metajoke. This of course would render the series of articles on this topic worthless.
Comment by inf4mation — 16 August, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Fair enough Inf4, I can see how Respect members would be upset by one of their leaders talking such utter nonsense.
But my point was that as a non-Respect person myself, that aspect of it’s a matter for them not me.
(After all, Andy isn’t be the first Respect leader to behave in a maverick fashion is he?).
My main concern is for the integrity of this site, a site which has become a hugely important resource for the left.
I just hope Andy’s idiocy hasn’t caused lasting damage to our site and perhaps lessons can be learned for the future in terms of editorial policy.
Comment by Communist — 16 August, 2009 @ 10:52 am
Andy, posting as “non-partisan” has used his editorial control again here by placing his own post into the middle of an exchange between Communist and Inf4mation and also, wierdly trying to dupe people by claiming that his posts have been “going missing”.
Andy, please take a break it’ll do you good!
Comment by no-one in Endgland agrees with Andy — 16 August, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Non-Partisan makes some good points.
Also, I fail to understand why Andy’s position on THIS question shows that he is GENERALLY a supporter of the US military machine.
If this guy had done all this as an act of protest against the crimes of US militarism he should be defending what he did on those grounds, as people have defended acts of sabotage on the grounds of the illegality of the war in Iraq for example.
Then we could be clear about any political basis for a campaign in his defence (legal and political). The problem I have with the way this is being posed is that there appears to be a theme suggesting that laws are irrelevant, particularly if they are being enforced by the USA, as if US imperialist crimes negate the right of the US state to enforce any of its laws.
If Mckinnon was a white supremacist who had left messages referring to “zion occupation government” or whatever, I doubt that he would have received as much support on this blog, and quite rightly too.
I have contributed to this debate previously, referring to the rule of law.
I do not believe that support for the principle of rule of law negates on occasion a decision to break specific laws, or defend those that do so, but I do believe that people who make such decisions have to be prepared to accept the potential consequences.
Now I know that there are those who contribute to this blog who are incapable of debating rationally or honestly, and who think that the best way to answer things they don’t agree with is to use a combination of slogans and insults, so for the avoidance of doubt:
1) I know that the US justice system massively discriminates against Black people.
2) Ditto for the working class and the poor.
3) The US military has committed and is committing crimes against humanity.
4) I was opposed to the war in Iraq, and continue to oppose the occupation.
5) Ditto for Afghanistan.
6) I recognise that the “war against terror” has led to massive infringements of civil liberties in the USA and Britain (see the Pakistani Students in the North West).
Comment by Armchair — 16 August, 2009 @ 11:19 am
And Andy takes his “non-partisan” post off and rearranges the thread yet again!
Comment by no-one in Endgland agrees with Andy — 16 August, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Armchair,
I don’t think Andy’s generally a supporter of the US military machine, I just agree with everyone else here that McKinnon should not be extradited.
And I don’t argue against all laws, I just think that in this particular case, Andy has got it hopelessly wrong.
Comment by Communist — 16 August, 2009 @ 11:30 am
Sure it is McKinnon, hacking into the Socialist Unity servers and posting as Andy, to provoke support for him on the left?
Comment by Anthony James — 16 August, 2009 @ 11:42 am
#39
Actually, Andy hasn’t taken any posts off. Sometimes posts get caught up in the moderation queue, which is what happened in this case.
Comment by John Wight — 16 August, 2009 @ 11:45 am
#38 Armchair - I think you perhaps misconstrue the main thrust of the argument (perhaps this is down to my own lack of clarity in expression)
The essential point is to do with ‘principles’ on which arguments are based. In my view (and from any recognisable socialist position) - Andy’s principles of argument here are fundamentally flawed. He has presented an essentially politically conservative argument against supporting acts which undermine and disrupt capitalist war activities.
This calls in to question the principles behind his alleged general anti-war stance as he supposedly also represents a principled anti-war party.
Comment by inf4mation — 16 August, 2009 @ 11:45 am
#40-Communist- fair enough, but I don’t think you were specifically one of the people my comment was aimed at.
The problem is, what is your argument against extradition based on?
1) That the extraditon treaty is wrong in principle.
2) That this specific individual can show that he will either not get a fair trial or will be subject to a disproportionate or cruel and unusual punishment.
3) That we should defend anyone against extradition if the crime they are accused of committing represents an act that we approve of.
If it’s (1), nobody should be extradited under its terms- bank robbers, rapists, paedophiles, white supremacists etc .
If it’s (2) then fair enough, let’s look at the evidence, and if the English court that made/ makes the decison has blatantly erred on this point, the decison should be appealed.
If it’s (3), I simply don’t believe that’s good enough. If I’m going actively to defend politically someone who has broken the law, I want evidence that they have done so for the right reasons.
Before Andy ruffled so many feathers with this, were any of those who have piled in against him actively involved in the campaign to support Mckinnon? Was anyone arguing that Mckinnon’s cause should become part of the platform for the anti-war movement? (genuine question btw).
#43-inf4mation - did Mckinnon act in the context of a coherent anti-war action? I don’t know.
One point that occurs to me (perhaps because I don’t understand computer technology very well) is that, if these military computer systems are as vulnerable to hacking as is now apparant, would it have been possible for someone inadvertantly to set off a missile or missile system by just messing about randomly with the system? That type of disruption of “capitalist war activities” I think we can do without.
Comment by Armchair — 16 August, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Is there not also a strong case for refusing to extradite ANYBODY to a country where convicts are executed.
Comment by Anthony James — 16 August, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
#46- Yes there is, and I may be wrong but I don’t think Britain does extradite if the death penalty is a possibility. But it is not an option in this case.
Comment by Armchair — 16 August, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
I think that’s an excellent point Anthony James, certainly something worthy of consideration, although such a policy, if adopted, would presumably only apply in “capital” cases.
It’s also a good idea to keep in mind this week’s shocking scenes in “small-town America,” where some citizens seem to genuinely believe that comprehensive healthcare coverage for the poor is nazism.
This is also a nation where in estimated one-third of the population genuinely believes in the backward and superstitious “theory” of creationism.
Would a jury drawn at random from such an ignorant and easily manipulable population judge our man fairly?
Armchair, I think that in this particular case, McKinnon should not be extradited because his “offence,” such as it is, is no more than that of causing a minor nuisance.
He may be technically in breach of the law, but on a scale comparable to kids playing football in the street in defiance of “no ball games” signs.
And no, of course it is not possible for computer hackers to “inadvertently” fire off nuclear missiles.This is paranoid nonsense.
Comment by Communist — 16 August, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
# 24
“And interesting that “Kareem” seems so sure of the identity of these various psuedonyms.Come on then Andy, who’s “bored with this now”? Why leave him/her out of it?”
“Communist” - it would have been pretty obvious to a 10 year old it was likely to be you using all of these sock puppets, but when you ahead and confirm it yourself even a 5 year old would know for sure.
What a complete and utter fuckwit.
# 48
“He may be technically in breach of the law, but on a scale comparable to kids playing football in the street in defiance of “no ball games” signs.”
Is that because, in your book all he did was “access a secret military website” and carry out “an internet search”, what a clueless fuckwit.
Mckinnon admits he committed a crime; he admits he is a criminal; he admits he needs to be punished.
End of.
Comment by kareem — 16 August, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
Communist- I am sure that you are correct about nuclear weapons (which I didn’t mention).
If I am wrong about other weapons systems, please tell me why I am wrong, and how you know (ie the science and the basis for your expertise on the subject). Otherwise admit that like me you don’t know.
And another small point, “paranoia” is a mental health condition. Personally I don’t like to go overboard on “political correctness”, but there are those who would say that using such terms as insults is offensive to people with menatal health issues.
On the capital punishment issue- isn’t that the reason why the gay Iranian guy (can’t recall his name) won his right to stay in this country?
Comment by Armchair — 16 August, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
Does anyone remember Shari Lewis and her sock puppets on TV? I used to love Lamb Chop as a kid.
Comment by Ray — 16 August, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
I accept that this case is not a candidate for the death sentence. However, I think countries opposed to murder and torture should refuse to extradite ANY suspects for ANY crimes (capital, serious, or petty) to the countries of more murderous regimes.
Comment by Anthony James — 16 August, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
Anthony - define “more murderous”. I don’t agree with the death penalty, but I might have a bit of a problem arguing against a Miami based Cuban right winger accused of terrorism being extradited to Cuba if they set foot in this country.
Comment by Armchair — 16 August, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
Armchair,
The use of the word “paranoid” is not offensive, in the context in which I’ve used it, it describes unreasonable and illogical alarm and fear.
In this context, it’s important that such fears are dismissed as the nonsense they are, because otherwise a witchunt atmosphere can be created in which people like McKinnon cannot receive justice.
Induced paranoia is a key component of the case against McKinnon and identifying that and dismissing the nosensical and illogical “case” against him cannot be abitrarily declared “off-limits”
Of course military systems are not invulnerable to attack, but free use of the internet makes them no more vulnerable than before.
If hackers were able to operate military hardware from their computer screens, don’t you think we would have heard of such an incident by now?
No Armchair, this belongs in the realms of fiction.
The point is that McKinnon did not harm anyone or anything and has done no more than cause a nuisance - and no doubt much embarassment - to the authorities.
Finally, Andy, posting as “Kareem” at (49), it’s very very sad to see an intelligent man ranting and rambling almost incoherently like this.
Comment by Communist — 16 August, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
By more murderous regimes, I meant regimes that murder tmore citizens. I don’t think it is about whether someone is a ‘right winger’. I am opposed to their murder either way. I don’t intend to make politcal value judgements about who can be killed and who spared, and I can’t think of anyone I’d like to judge me thus.
Comment by Anthony James — 16 August, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
I think it’s very important for the left here and in the US to oppose capital punishment. The evidence that miscarriages of justice have led to the state murder of innocent people means that extraditing people to countries that practice it is colluding with it.
The US government has executed socialists and other innocent people on trumped up charges in the past. Its justice system is designed to make it very difficult for poor and oppressed people to receive a fair trial for crimes they have been accused of.
While McKinnon isn’t likely to face such a serious sentence the fact that, in another recent case, a young man was fined over half a million dollars for downloading thirty songs brings into perspective just how skewed and unpredictable the US criminal justice system really is.
I say “unpredictable” but the rule is that if you haven’t got money to build your defence case then the law doesn’t favour you in the US.
Comment by Ray — 16 August, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
Communist- thanks for answering my question- you don’t know, any more than I do.
Comment by Armchair — 16 August, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
The risk of miscarriage of justice really the point, for me. I’m not only against state murder of innocent defendants. I’m against the murder of the guilty too. I wouldn’t permit the murder of any of the people I’ve met who have comitted capital crimes, so it would be hypocritical of me not to oppose death penalties being given to people who are strangers to me. And if countries like England only extradited to countries which respect the human rights of convicts, then these rights would prevail.
Comment by Anthony James — 16 August, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
Under the US/UK extradition treaty their is no guarantee that McKinnon won’t be tried for other crimes than for what he is extradited for - this could be a capital offence. Nor is there any guarantee that he could be transferred to another country to be tortured either. This is not hypothetical - this is what the US government does in practice. It is also what the UK government does in collaboration with the US.
Comment by DuncanB — 16 August, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
# 54
“Finally, Andy, posting as “Kareem” at (49), it’s very very sad to see an intelligent man ranting and rambling almost incoherently like this.”
What a deluded ignorant sock puppet using troll you are!
If it really were Andy posting this do you not think he might just erase your crap?
The fact is that you havent got a clue of what you are on about, not a scooby.
You think all he did we access a secret military website” and carry out “an internet search”!!!
Astounding ignorance.
Mckinnon admits he committed a crime; he admits he is a criminal; he admits he needs to be punished.
And he will be. And thats that really.
Comment by kareem — 17 August, 2009 @ 3:44 am
(60) Ok Andy, you’ve made exactly the same point now innumerable times, and with mounting hysteria, and still no-one agrees with you.
Armchair (57), of course, if someone did use their own personal computer to fire missiles etc, then of course this would be extremely serious.
But I am not aware of this ever having happened and therefore it is my view that such a scenario belongs in the realms of fiction.
If this has happened, then tell us about it. When? What was fired? Who was killed or injured?
Anyway, getting back to the McKinnon affair, there is no suggestion that that is what he has done is there?
Your argument is rather like calling for the imprisonment of kids “illegally” kicking a football in the street and justifying this by pointing to possible burglaries that might or might not be committed or have been committed in the same street.
With regard to extradition in general, of course there are instances where this is appropriate, but McKinnon is not one.
Comment by Communist — 17 August, 2009 @ 5:10 am
Communist- I wasn’t refering to a deliberate act, which is why I used the word ‘inadvertantly’. I can’t cite when it has happened because, as I said, I don’t know if it could happen. As for extradition, I would on balance prefer that he wasn’t.
Comment by Armchair — 17 August, 2009 @ 7:39 am
It’s good that you agree McKinnon shouldn’t be extradited and my apologies if I’ve wrongly assumed otherwise.
On extradition in general, although Anthony James makes a good point that we need to take into consideration the applicant nation’s use or not of capital punishment, its legal system and its political culture, I wouldn’t be in favour of a blanket ban on extraditions - that could make the UK a safe haven for the world’s worst criminals.
Judging extradition requests on a case-by-case basis has got to be the best way forward in my opinion.
Comment by Communist — 17 August, 2009 @ 8:25 am
Communist- Case by case basis is absolutely correct.
What I find difficult about this whole debate, as I suggested earlier, is that I feel that most of the sympathy expressed for Mckinnon has been provoked by Andy rather thatn any strong feeling that he is a special case due to any political considerations about what he’s supposed to have done.
I will also say that, if what I am led to believe about hacking is true, it is potentially a very serious matter.
I work for a firm that is involved in assisting people with very serious and confidential problems. Like most organisation of our type, we have a large ammount of data stored on computer. The consequences of successful hacking and/ or virus sabotage could be unimagiably dire for a large number of people.
My view on Mckinnon is that I would rather he wasn’t extradited, largely for similar reasons to most of the commentators on these threads. I would by no means be guaranteed to take that position with regard to other hackers.
Comment by Armchair — 17 August, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Christian H., I very rarely make political comments on my personal blog, however, I do take the media to task for poor coverage, quite frequently, which was the main thrust of my post. On this particular instance, I was also responding to an attack on my professional standards. Politics is certainly a part of this story, but the (incredibly poor) standard of reporting, for me, is the main issue.
Comment by Kevin Anderson — 17 August, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
# 61
“Ok Andy, you’ve made exactly the same point now innumerable times, and with mounting hysteria, and still no-one agrees with you.”
When you say no one you really just mean a few, mainly you, Ray and your various sock puppets. Your tactics, as always, have done the intended job of intimidating anyone else that might have agreed but doesn’t want to be insulted and stigmatized by idiots like you.
Why is that that you cant get it through your troll head that McKinnon himself admits he committed a crime? What it is a about that you don’t get?
Why is that that you cant get it through your troll head that McKinnon himself admits he is a criminal who needs to be punished? What it is a about that you don’t get?
(well I know you cant get through your troll head what really happened whe you think all he did we access a secret military website” and carry out “an internet search”!!!)
If the man himself admits coming a crime for which he himself says he should be punished, who the hell are you to say otherwise?
Comment by kareem — 17 August, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Kareem I don’t think you are Andy. I do however think you now have nothing new to say on this subject. You are not going to convince the people you are getting frustrated about- they simply don’t agree with you.
Don’t you think it’s now time to put this to rest if you haven’t got anything new to say?
Comment by Armchair — 17 August, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
“Why is that that you cant get it through your troll head that McKinnon himself admits he committed a crime? What it is a about that you don’t get?”
Because the point is that the real issue here is that the US of A government and legal system is, as always, hypocritical. You can focus on the bigger picture of state corruption and hypocrisy - the fact that the US government organizes hackers in large numbers for its own ends - or you can obsess about one guy and thus buy into all the right wing, anti-crime nonsense that ends with the same old “more cops, harsher penalties” mantra of the Tory press. To try to dress up opposition to that as somehow being bigotry against the people of America is just silly, since nobody has said anything about the American people during this argument and the American people as a nation are certainly not suffering from oppression and in need of support to realize their right to self-determination.
Comment by redbedhead — 17 August, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
Is Kevin Anderson living on another planet….?
“British journalism believes in campaigns and they love the narrative of the small guy against the big bad US.”
Kevin, the only ‘campaigns’ British journalists ‘love’ are generally military, you know, the ones that involve supporting established power against weaker enemies. UK journalists are depressingly subordinate to the state, virtually without exception - as numerous studies have shown.
Their alleged ‘love’ of the narrative of the ’small guy’ against the ‘big bad US’ is a myth, and belongs with the fiction of their ‘adverserial’ stand towards domestic power.
I’m afraid there’s a word for your kind of journalism, but it’s not as kind as ’sloppy.’
Comment by Anonymous — 17 August, 2009 @ 7:04 pm