Some real news maybe ?

[french frank]

No, I'm not 100 % approving of US policies, nor do I wish them well in all their enterprises, so I don't support them in all their endeavours. But petty actions to hurt their pride would make the UK look pathetic.

I think the question of UK sovereignty is also involved. If the US has - as the news story suggests - placed a figure on their financial loss, why not recompense them - whatever the motive behind it?

But this is a sideshow: the main point is the Home Secretary's decision which, in this country at least, is probably greeted with complete relief.

[handsomefortune]

complete relief.

definitely.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I think the question of UK sovereignty is also involved. If the US has - as the news story suggests - placed a figure on their financial loss, why not recompense them - whatever the motive behind it?

But this is a sideshow: the main point is the Home Secretary's decision which, in this country at least, is probably greeted with complete relief.

Because paying them to compensate their loss prior to any trial in the the UK would be a tacit admission of guilt - what sort of picture does that paint of our attitude to law?

I accept May's decision - she has the facts about his condition, I don't. But I think we have to be aware of how this plays in the minds of Americans. Try this the other way round - a (claimed) mentally ill US citizen hacks into GCHQ (using a telephone or whatever, it's immaterial), causes some damage, and breaches UK security; then the US refuses extradition because of the risk to the life of the hacker. I guess that would be the US exerting undue foreign influence?

[LHC]

A very sensible decision. Why did it take 10 years to arrive at it?

Given that the decision to not extradite him was taken on the basis of recent evidence about his mental health (that he was now likely to commit suicide if extradited), he's probably lucky that it has taken ten years. if the final decision had been taken years ago, he would have been languishing in a US jail for several years by now.

[Simon]

And my own reason would be because they attempt to exert too much influence in the affairs of other sovereign countries. If you are 100% approving of their international policies you will, of course, wish them nothing but well and support them in all their endeavours.

I'm glad that you put this in such a way - succinct and to the point as usual. I can sympathize with your view. This interference is the thing that shows them both at their best and at their worst, and it's certainly what annoys so many in so many countries. (A worthwhile general read on this is "Why do people hate America", Sardar and Davies, 2002, Icon Books, Cambridge, UK.)

Half the time, I wish the Yanks would keep out. The other half, I feel glad that they are there to get involved. Half the time, they do it for reasons that benefit Uncle Sam and its powerful industry lobbies and don't care a fig for the locals. At other times, one senses a genuine desire to protect the vulnerable and to effect the establishment of freedoms. Usually, of course, it's a mix of the two, with one pre-eminent.

I'm not interested in the jeers of know-nothing armchair anti-Americans on this one. I work with Americans a lot of the time, I know them, I talk to them and I see the results of what they do, very often at first hand. And most of the time it's difficult to know whether one is shaking one's head in disbelief at their crassness and naivete or in amazement at their idealism and resourcefulness.

Personally, I would find it hard to hate the USA a such, if only because of history. One imagines what would have happened if, post 1945, the USSR or China had become the dominant force in world affairs and only a fool would not be glad that a country that valued individual freedoms was the world's lead player in those times. Life under Stalin or Mao's philosophies would, I think, not have been so pleasant...

Nonetheless, I find it easy to hold in contempt those who are pulling the strings at the top in Washington. That can't go on much longer without a major change. Nor will it.

[Nick Armstrong]

As "evidence", such reports are about as reliable as a Belgian MEP's expense claim.)

My friend Dr. Trot Ter-Zindertroff of the Hot Air Walloon Party has asked me to advise you that he resembles that remark.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Simon,

Perhaps the US is looking for a mission post coldwar, just as we were after the second world war? I think we need to remember that the cold war lasted 45 years and required great courage and expenditure from the US.

[Thropplenoggin]

Lest we forget, the US has signed but not ratified the Rome statute for the International Criminal Court, alongside such moral paragons as Angola and Algeria. It also conveniently side-stepped the Geneva Conventions in 2001 by creating a whole new genre of PoW - "illegal enemy combatants".

Just sayin'...

[french frank]

Because paying them to compensate their loss prior to any trial in the the UK would be a tacit admission of guilt - what sort of picture does that paint of our attitude to law?

It's not an admission of guilt. If my three-year-old pulls up my next door neighbour's newly planted flower bed and damages the plants, I will reimburse my neighbour. That's not saying that I'm guilty or my (putative) three-year-old. In this case McKinnon was not being extradited for damaging US military computers but to be charged with crimes which could have put him behind bars for 60 years. The evidence appeared to suggest that he had no criminal or malicious intent and that his understanding of the seriousness and implications of what he was doing was deficient.

Try this the other way round - a (claimed) mentally ill US citizen hacks into GCHQ (using a telephone or whatever, it's immaterial), causes some damage, and breaches UK security; then the US refuses extradition because of the risk to the life of the hacker. I guess that would be the US exerting undue foreign influence?

All cases are different, but the case you describe doesn't have quite the same ring of reality - I don't know why!

[An_Inspector_Calls]

It's not an admission of guilt. If my three-year-old pulls up my next door neighbour's newly planted flower bed and damages the plants, I will reimburse my neighbour. That's not saying that I'm guilty or my (putative) three-year-old. In this case McKinnon was not being extradited for damaging US military computers but to be charged with crimes which could have put him behind bars for 60 years. The evidence appeared to suggest that he had no criminal or malicious intent and that his understanding of the seriousness and implications of what he was doing was deficient.All cases are different, but the case you describe doesn't have quite the same ring of reality - I don't know why!

You are admitting guilt and paying damages because (I assume???) you'd didn't make these actions casually. You actually 'tried' your child, found them guilty, unable to pay the compensation, so then you pay up. You don't say

"Pish, all my children are perfect, they're never guilty of anything, but if you want to be petty about a few quid, here's the money, I can't be bothered with this",

and hope at the same time to dent the pride of your neighbour.

[Serial_Apologist]

My friend Dr. Trot Ter-Zindertroff of the Hot Air Walloon Party has asked me to advise you that he resembles that remark.

Self-inflated, is he???

(Just noting that the British Irony Bypass Supporter's Club has taken over the forum this afternoon )

[Simon]

Simon,

Perhaps the US is looking for a mission post coldwar, just as we were after the second world war? I think we need to remember that the cold war lasted 45 years and required great courage and expenditure from the US.

Yes, indeed it did. If one speaks to those who were actually affected by life the other side of the curtain - i.e. those who really understood it, as opposed to the armchair idealists in the UK and those poor naive supporters of such fronts as CND - one finds nothing but gratitude to the West for holding firm. I'm not old enough to remember the airlift, but I've been often enough in Berlin and I've spoken to those who do. Some of their comments are humbling.

Maybe you're right about their "mission", though I'd suggest that it was only a part of it, albeit a well-intentioned part. Sadly, much of their foreign policy was diverted to the benefit of amoral industrial profiteering, careless, as is greed in general, of the rights of, and its responsibilities to, others.

[John Shelton]

.

[MrGongGong]

No, but I've been away again for most of the last week.

Anyway, instead of making tangential comments, how about answering my question? Or was your own earlier comment just another groundless swipe at a government you don't happen to agree with?

(And please don't respond with yet another link to your usual comic. As "evidence", such reports are about as reliable as a Belgian MEP's expense claim.)

I'm assuming that you consider the Guardian "my usual comic" ?? though I can't think why as I don't often read it
so

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/paralympics/politics-and-the-paralympics-voters-are-against-cuts-to-disability-benefits-8100742.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/personal-finance/esa-disabled-betrayed-by-condems-government-1167661

here's one from your favourite comic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2094805/Why-does-David-Cameron-insist-disability-cuts-sickened-party.html

[scottycelt]

Unlike the Germans, apparently,

Sixty five percent of Germans think they would be better off without the euro, according to a poll published by German newspaper Die Welt, reflecting growing unease in Europe's biggest economy at having to bankroll bailouts of troubled economies such as Greece.

Forty nine percent of Germans also believe Germany would be better off if it was not in the European Union, according to the poll by TNS Emnid poll.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/most-germans-oppose-euro-french-145052414.html

Given the complexities and volatility of the multiple situations I doubt it's possible to say with any confidence what "the people of Europe" or of the various EU countries want, or to talk of that as if it's stable or predictable.

http://www.iii.co.uk/news-opinion/reuters/news/57038

Everything is politically motivated, not just "left-wing agitation." You may not see them as such but your views are politically motivated; because these are political questions.

I was not referring to Germany but Greece. I hear no serious talk of Germany leaving the Euro so that's a non-issue, unlike Greece where at one time almost every leading economist was forecasting a Greek exit, or at least not betting against it.

The fact that all opinion polls show an overwhelming support for the Euro in the latter country is a fact and nothing to do with my political views.

This fact may well stick in your craw but that does not make it any less a fact.

Sorry ...