Gary McKinnon: Double Standards Apply
Gary McKinnon is a sufferer of Asperger Syndrome, and his legal case opens up the view on the cesspool that constitutes British and American politics and what they tend to call a legal system. To a person thinking in Roman law terms, it all would seem rather ridiculous, if it wasn’t so tragic and the circumstances just plainly disgusting.
Gary McKinnon is suffering from Asperger Syndrome which is a form of autism; its typical manifestations include a high level of angst induced by changing circumstances, low communication level towards strangers, singular manic interests, and a manic attachment to routine. His crime was to show up American incompetence by hacking into the Pentagon computer system to look for little green men. The United States want him delivered up to American ‘justice’ under American terrorist ‘laws’ and a one sided treaty with the United Kingdom.
What is Asperger Syndrome? Click here.
To make it quite clear, I do not condone criminal behaviour in any way, what I want to show up in this little article is the way how double standards are continuously applied by governments, and I mean any governments in the world, to make it seem they are right and everybody else is wrong.
The United States are absolutely in the right to ask for the extradition of any criminal in the world that they feel should be tried under their laws, and as to their citizens this requests could be honoured by other countries. But as soon as the subject of the request is not American, the obvious answer is an immediate ‘no’, as the United States are notorious for not extraditing their own citizens to stand a fair trial somewhere else. Or could you imagine the US extraditing war criminal Bush to The Hague tribunal?
The rigmarole being played out in Britain over this extradition is just breathtaking. For one, the court cases over this case have already added up to hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax payer money; n.b. for a case that is completely clear, an extradition under international treaties or international law to a country that is notorious for not keeping to its international treaties or international law is not even imaginable, except to the gutless flunkies of this brainless government. In all probability, being partners in crime (Iraq, Afghanistan, and others) this pretended adherence to international treaties gives the current non-leaders of Britain the sense of doing something right. Disgusting thought, isn’t it?
Meanwhile the (powerless and marginal) British parliament in Westminster got excited enough for several MPs to call for a debate and vote on the case to stop the government from being so plainly wrong. Unhappily, the craven MPs after making much noise docilely submitted to the (undemocratic) whipping, meaning they were not allowed to vote by either conscience or lawfully, but as the party decreed. So the vote was in favour of the spineless government consisting of brainless gits under Gordon Brown incompetent leadership, if you care to call it such.
It boils down to the fact that a government voted in to lead and secure the interests of this country and its people and citizens is completely ignoring what it should do and does as it pleases, to the detriment of everybody holding a British passport or living in this country. Is it a wonder that people would prefer passports from countries that look after their citizens?
To add insult to incompetence, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, insisted that he can’t stop the extradition as it would be against the law. Coming from a known and proven fraudster this is just a bit rich in my opinion. As Ministers in Britain are also MPs they are just as fraudulent regarding the expenses they unlawfully claimed as the rest of this Mafia bunch called the political establishment, and hiding behind lawful behaviour kin this one case doesn’t make him any less a fraudster and a criminal himself.
Is the United States government in the wrong in this case? This is debatable as by the letter of the law it is not, but quite obviously terrorist laws were not intended for a case like this one and makes invoking them unethical. It looks more like retaliating against somebody who exposed incompetent public employees. If the American population wants to believe that their justice system is the best in the world, they are perfectly entitled to do so, if they are able to accept that American laws stop at the border of the United States and its colonies. If they believe it should work for the rest of the world, it is time they stopped having illusions. Imposing it on other countries by force of arms won’t win any friends, as the Iraq war should finally have shown (after many others).
Is the British government in the wrong in this case? By the letter of the law it is not wrong either, but while convicted terrorists with almost any kind of real or fake passports from all kinds of countries have the run of the country under what British courts call ‘human rights’, the extradition of a British citizen to a foreign power just can’t be accepted at all. It is therefore clear that the case has to go before the European courts and the human rights question clarified. There can be no doubt that the European court must stop this ridiculousness of going any further, but taxpayers will again foot the bill. In all probability more taxpayers’ money is spent on covering up gaffes of governments and public employees provoked by double standards used than on education.
The short wording for government morals is summed up in the saying ‘do as I say, don’t do as I do’, though my mother rather used that saying in connection with religion.