View Poll Results: Which Browser do you dislike the most & Why?
- Voters
- 19. You may not vote on this poll
-
May 14th, 2006, 10:39 PM
#31
From a financial stand point, I definitely don't want him here. It will cost $$$ to get him over here, it will cost a fortune for a trial, and about 60-70K a year to house his butt in jail once he's Bubba Bait. That comes out of my pocket. So UK please just handle it.
cheers
Connection refused, try again later.
-
May 15th, 2006, 09:44 AM
#32
Hey Relyt ,
From a financial stand point, I definitely don't want him here. It will cost $$$ to get him over here, it will cost a fortune for a trial, and about 60-70K a year to house his butt in jail once he's Bubba Bait
Correct, apart from the politics, there is a big financial issue. The cost and lack of evidence is what stopped the British CPS going ahead in the first instance.
The US claims for "costs" would be ripped to shreds in minutes in a British appeal court. Trust me, I know just how difficult it is to prove consequential loss/damages even in a civil case. That is why they generally degenerate into back room dealings between insurance companies
Now, we get to the nitty gritty.................$700,000? not to mention other different figures that have been bandied around. The defence could (quite rightly) demand that the figure be audited. Naturally that would require auditors for the defence and auditors for the prosecution.
Double staffed at quadruple rate? and who gets to pay for that?
It would only take one bit of "creative accountancy" to be detected, and the whole house of cards would collapse.
The first move has to be for the USA to provide sufficient evidence for us to close the UK side of this issue?
Otherwise, perhaps George.W.Bush would like to bring a private prosecution under UK law, in his capacity of supreme commander in chief?
Please also consider this: Those sites were as open as a store front after a disaster.........looters are everywhere, and you catch a guy with a looted TV............... do you then charge him with stealing everything that was stolen in the town that day?
If this was a very competent person, it would only have been him; that could easily be proven, and the whole issue would have been resolved in 4 months, not 4 years
-
May 18th, 2006, 02:56 PM
#33
Remember the american tourist that spraypainted some cars in Singapore (I think, it was years ago). Seems we didn't get a chance to extradite him. I also remember of a drunk diplomat who, in DC, was speeding all over God's creation, destroyed people's private property (off-roading in a Mercedes?), ended up running several off the road before plowing into another car, killing more than one of the occupants. What happened? We didn't get to do crap to him because of "Diplomatic Immunity" yet that tourist/student/whatever gets publicly caned.
We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.
-
May 19th, 2006, 01:05 AM
#34
Originally posted here by nihil
Hey Relyt ,
...the whole issue would have been resolved in 4 months, not 4 years
Hey Nihil,
Amen! If we had an offense in the way back then, then seems to me that a "speedy trial" would have proved benefical. However to spend money out of my pocket to fly his stinky arse over here, really fires me up. It is pure stupidity on our part to be so concerned about it now - 4 years later. What possible value would it serve to spend a ton of money on a trial etc., for something that no longer applies. Any damage caused by his viewing etc., has long since been abated. Would a trial act as a deterent to future deviants. No. Has it ever? But we can be assured that they will always attempt to break in. Do with him what the UK wants.
cheers
Connection refused, try again later.
-
May 19th, 2006, 07:36 AM
#35
-
November 14th, 2009, 02:25 AM
#36
this doesn't surprise me , anyone with half a brain involved in some area of computers has known for years that government computer networks are insecure ,most times the door into the networks is thru something as harmless as us navys personnel server ,the systems that are in everyday use cant be secured in the way they ought to be because the higher up admirals and generals order the security officers to lax security restrictions because they cant be bothered to remember passwords and user names , i saw a bit of it in my time in the marine corps
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|