Message-Id: <1222821563.11507.32.camel@roswell.ausics.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:39:24 +1000
From: Noel Butler <noel.butler@...ics.net>
To: Exibar <exibar@...lair.com>
Cc: info@...egary.org.uk, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [inbox] Re: Supporters urge halt	to, hacker's,
	extradition to US

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 09:21, Exibar wrote:

> excuse me?  You're attempt at insults are pointed wrongly.
>  
>   I've read the legal brief on his case, the UK documents on his case
> too, he's ADMITTED guilt.  In my book that's enough to call him a
> criminal, he should be arrested and tried in a court of law to
> determine if that is a fact or not.  It's up to his accusers to prove
> his guilt.  He is not actually guilty until he is found to be guilty
> in the court of law.  If they cannot prove he is guilty, he must walk
> a free man.  Not to difficult to prove guilt when the accuser admits
> to what he's done....  


No, he admits to gaining entry and leaving a message that he did exactly
that, he admits to causing *no* damage,  *unlike* what the U.S accuse
him of.

Does he need to be punished? Yes. Where? The crime was committed in the
U.S because thats the location of the devices entered, so he should
stand trial in the U.S  *if* it can be proved there is strong evidence
for all allegations of serious nature, and if a reasonable person may
consider he will get a fair trial he should be extradited, but due to
the U.S governments own f-ups and public termper tamtrums because he
exposed their incompetence in IT security, or extreme lack thereof, they
are going all out showing it is unlikely he will get a fair trial, a
reasonable person in this country would also say it is unlikely he would
get a fair trial. 

If he is able to get out of this, he can in fact thank the U.S big
mouths who, I dare say getting close to the U.S elections are only
political grandstanding (which in fairness is typical of most countries
in election times anyway)

But since he's admitted to gaining entry, but did no damage, one would
expect he should be fined,
rather then sent to prison, but if prison was mandatory, I fail to see
how they could lock him up for more than 12 months, a crime was
committed, so a penalty must be paid, but a fair penalty that fits 
the crime.

I beg to ask the question, what has happened to the IT staff responsible
for this, are they standing trial as well for compromising national
security?  Are they being held under the patriot act somewhere because
some paranoid delusional thinks they might have left things open
deliberately for cyber terrorists? .. No, I bet those twats are sitting
at their desks telling stories of who they screwed on the weekend, still
safe in their jobs, even if not for the U.S Government, they most likely
still making the same mistakes for the past 6 years as they did back
then.



>     
>    He is completely innocent until found guilty... at least in the US,
> UK, and even Australia that is the way things are.  


You seem to be contradicting yourself here, but maybe a little bit of
light is getting in.



> Lets see what the Chinese would do to him if he did the same thing
> over then than over here.


China has changed a lot in recent times, I think you'd find he'd get a
fair trial, and you wouldnt have ministers their saying he needs to
"fry" 


Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists