Tinfoil Hats Don't Ward Off Extradition Papers

I might have to remember that in the event the Home Office somehow has misplaced my visa application. This is becoming evident as lawyers for 43-year-old Gary McKinnon are down to last-ditch efforts to prevent his extradition to the U.S. to face charges of hacking into Department of Defense computers. McKinnon, who has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, a higher-functioning form of autism, says he did access those computers but he was looking for evidence on UFOs, specifically whether the US government was covering up information on their existence as well as their propulsion systems.

While this defense might bring about a chuckle on the US side, the case has generated widespread disapproval in the UK. Yesterday, Home Secretary Alan Johnson again declined to intercede, saying he was powerless to prevent the move and added that he had received assurances that McKinnon's condition would be taken into account with regards to his custody while in the US. Government critics, including a committee in the House of Commons, say McKinnon's mental health is too precarious to allow his removal from the UK, while others have pointed out apparent inequities in the extradition treaty between America and Britain.

Unfortunate for McKinnon, he picked the weeks following 9/11 to start gaining unauthorized access to DoD computers and look for this information on UFOs. This is a gross breach of national security, and while more needs done to safeguard IT resources, breaking into a foreign government's computers is a form of cyber warfare. As he could have gained more sensitive information if he had wanted, McKinnon must face the music, and unless the US expresses willingness to set up a temporary courtroom on Grosvenor Square in London, his extradition is thus necessary. Likewise, if a US citizen were to hack into the UK's Ministry of Defence computers looking for information on something as benign as who's contracted to forge the Victoria Cross medallions, he or she should expect ramifications from UK authorities.

Conversely, should McKinnon find himself in a US courtroom, his diagnosis of Asperger's must be weighed when it comes to sentencing. 70 years does seem excessive for someone with a mental condition, especially if such a sentence is served in Leavenworth. As McKinnon has admitted on multiple occasions to the BBC his actions, a plea bargain which would allow him to serve the majority of his sentence in the UK would be wise.

Therefore, instead of McKinnon's advocates convincing a UK government that is struggling to find some remnant of credibility to hold onto, they should instead put the pressure on the US State Department to be the compassionate ones. After all, it was Barack Obama who won the Nobel Peace Prize in spite of declining to issue a pardon posthumously to boxer Jack Johnson. If he wants to prove to a growingly skeptical international community that he does aim to "strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," he could start by scrapping extradition and either hammer a plea deal with McKinnon or let him be tried in the UK.

Didn't hear this in the Queen's speech last week

Last week, the last annual State Opening of Parliament occurred, where Her Majesty The Queen read the annual goals of the House of Commons. By "Annual Goals of the House of Commons" that pretty much meant the Labour Party Manifesto for the election on or before 3 June that they've been dawdling on calling. One thing that wasn't mentioned in the Queen's speech that might catch many residents of the UK and Commonwealth off-guard is about to be proposed by prime minister Gordon Brown later this week when Commonwealth heads of government meet in Trinidad.

The Prime Minister wishes to remove provisions that bar Catholics from assuming the British throne and also discontinue the automatic elevation of male heirs. If other Commonwealth government heads agree to pursue similar bills in their respective parliaments, they will remove a roadblock installed to assure the succession of Protestants (namely members of the Church of England) since the Glorious Revolution 321 years ago. In the UK, the measure was introduced earlier this year by Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP from Oxford West. Government officials in March prevented the measure from coming up for discussion, but the Prime Minister indicated interest in debating the issue a later date, after meeting with members of the Royal Family about other possible changes to the line of succession.

Brown does make it a point to note that the measure is to ensure that no discrimination exists in the manner by which the Head of State of the 16 Commonwealth realms is selected, and for that should be applauded. Where opposition to the idea exists, principally from Australia and Canada (according to Brown & Harris during Question Time today), might need better justifying. If members of Kevin Rudd & Stephen Harper's respective governments object to the prospect of a princess assuming the throne over her younger brother, then there lies a serious problem. Ironic, considering that Canada gained Dominion status in 1867 from Queen Victoria and full independence from Westminster in 1982.

It again must be noted that in addition to being the sovereign leader of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and 13 other countries, the person seated on the British throne also is the sovereign of the Church of England. As sovereign of the Church of England, he/she is responsible for appointing (by way of clerical committees fleshing out candidates for the Prime Minister to formally nominate) the spiritual leader of the church, the Archbishop of Canterbury. While the monarch's role is largely ceremonial in this process, they still retain by law the ability to not grant royal assent to the appointment of new bishops. Thus, it would make sense for the monarch, as a fellow member of the Anglican Communion, rather than a Catholic, Southern Baptist, Sikh, etc. etc., to make the appointment. Conversely, Catholics likely would not be fond of Anglican bishops sitting in the conclave to select the next pope, nor would a Latter-Day Saint be thrilled at the prospect of a seat on the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles filled by someone who has no intention of accepting the Book of Mormon as word incarnate.

This chief concern, coming as the Roman Catholic Church earlier this year announced plans to allow Anglican parishes which disapprove of changes within the Church of England to convert to Catholicism, needs adequately addressed and resolved by Commonwealth leaders this weekend should any such change to the rule of succession take place. Or, they can take the easy way out and either do nothing, declare a universal separation of Church and Crown, or abolish the monarchy altogether and become republics still aligned in an organization that British governments have gradually let become supplanted by the EU.

Eight Hours of Daylight

Welcome to November, where the sun's setting over the North Downs of Kent at 4:30. By month's end, it'll be just after 4:00.

Meanwhile, a side project I've been working on for the Romney Marsh Times has finally been published. Enjoy this interview I conducted with lifelong James Bond fan and expert Graham Rye.

Things should be picking up in the coming days. Along with the nightlight.

What's Eating Johnny Bull?

Much of the UK is on edge tonight for one of two (if not both) reasons. This morning, members of the Communications Workers Union began organised work stoppages throughout Royal Mail, picketing the services' proposed modernisation efforts. Those efforts include Royal Mail's proposed introduction of automated equipment that would sort mail in the order the postman/postwoman would deliver it, which would eliminate hundreds of jobs, and the prospect of privatising the service.

Today drivers and workers at mail processing centres picketed, and tomorrow the delivery and collection staff will picket. And with no desire for the union, Royal Mail magaement, and government ministers to come to an agreement, the CWU has announced that additional stoppages will be planned for next week. Trick or Treat.

Meanwhile, the politically minded are in heated debates over whether tonight will mark a "red letter day" for democracy or its darkest hour. Earlier today, under intense security and with throngs of protesters outside White City, the BBC's weekly Question Time took place with Nick Griffin, leader of the controversial far-right British National Party, on the panel along with Justice Secretary Jack Straw. In spite of multiple criticisms about the prospect of the appearance on this high profile Q&A programme legitimising the presence of the BNP in British Politics, the BBC's chiefs say that because they have been elected to local councils and now the European Parliament, they are entitled to appear on the show.

On the flip side, several who oppose the BNP's message of anti-EU, "British & Celtic Folk > anyone who produces just enough skin pigment" say that having Griffin appear on Question Time will put the spotlight on the extremist views of the party, who only three years ago removed anti-Semitic clauses in their constitution, and are just now relenting to calls on removing race restrictions on their membership.

The buzz over the past week, and much of the programme slated to air on BBC One in about 20 minutes, focused squarely on scrutinising the views of Griffin and the BNP. Earlier this week, retired generals launched a campaign saying that there was nothing British about the BNP, and demanding the BNP cease using images of Winston Churchill and the Spitfire fighter plane in their campaign material. News agencies profiled districts and council boroughs where the BNP had won seats. All the while, the party considers this bonus coverage and is comparing it to the rise of France's le Front National 25 years ago.

I will likely react to tonight's Question Time once it airs. And my new BS detector arrives in the post.

Shull & Moriarty wish they thought of this…

While nepotism has been frowned upon in US Politics, and its practitioners scolded in some states, efforts to shun it in the UK are causing some MPs to find ways around new rules proposed by an in-house auditor.

This morning, BBC South East reported that Susan Gale, who has worked in her husband Roger's Parliament office since his election from North Thanet (surrounding Margate in easternmost Kent) in 1983, has written to an employment solicitors agency looking for advice on how to keep her job should rules make it illegal for MPs to hire family members for their offices. Reportedly, she says that she would either have to divorce her husband to remain at the job or become unemployed.

A statement of that nature would get the "Really?" treatment from Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update. While I'm half-tempted to come up with one bordering on half-researched ad hominems, I'll concede to the master Seth Myers. After all, he'd execute such a rant much better and be surrounded by an audience already laughing uncontrollably just after midnight.

If the Gales are serious about divorce for the sake of keeping her on the gravy train in the midst of a recession, as oppose to coming up with a budget like most of Middle England, this would perhaps be the first instance of a sham divorce in modern history. No one's going to believe there was a lack of love or irreconcilable differences. Especially if such a divorce was genuine, in which case where was the love to begin with?

This duo have been a steady force for the Tories in East Kent, claiming the seat when it was established in 1983 over a last-minute campaign by Cherie Booth, who wound up in 10 Downing a decade later as Mrs. Blair. But with public distrust down to a point where Average Joe voters are threatening to vote for the reactionary BNP just to send a message, no seat is safe. To publicly say something of this sort shows a complete disregard for the people's interests in Parliament. To say you would go so far as to discard participation in a noble institution like marriage just to keep feeding at the public trough shows complete callousness and lack of concern for proper use of the taxpayer's money.

It's bizarre loophole exploitations like this that make taxpayers angry as hell. At least it's nice to know that Peggy Shull & Judy Moriarty didn't think of this when they helped their kids out 15 years ago.

On Fairy Tales

This past week, I've been reading one newspaper non-stop: the Labour-leaning Guardian, and they've been telling fairy tales. Included in each issue the past week were booklets containing some of the most well-known fairy tales, which I've been accumulating for use a few years down the road in the event the Mrs. and I beget little Missouri expats (although in most likelihood, they'll be Kentish expats in Missouri). To get the most of the £8 we've paid to collect the booklets, I've subjected myself to the Guardian's telling of the ongoing fairy tale of how little Gordy will rise back to the top, even as his Commons leader defiantly challenges the retroactive application of new reimbursement limits.

(Sidenote of great importance: one ongoing tale where the valiant hero is the Guardian just hit the denoument, as they have achieved victory over the nefarious villain Trafigura over the oil firm's attempts to squelch Parliament debate, coverage of such debate, and court rulings squelching coverage of such debate, over Trafigura's alleged dumping of oil waste off the Ivory Coast. A much-needed victory for free press that even resulted in Gordon Brown applauding a motion from a Tory backbencher.)

Chief among the Guardian's fairy tales was spelled out on Sunday, when they told about the story of David the Etonian going to Brussels to tag up with Polish apologists, Latvian SS-lovers, and Czech global warning sceptics. Among the articles telling this story, foreign secretary David Miliband penned a column criticising the Conservatives for aligning with such parties instead of sticking with the mainstream conservatives parties fronted by Sarkozy, Merkel and Berlusconi. The tale spelled out over the course of seven pages, including an extensive piece on the leader of Poland's Law and Justice Party, Michal Kaminski, who stymied Poland's attempts to apologise for atrocities committed on its Jewish residents during Nazi occupation in World War II. What makes this heavy coverage a fairy tale is this:

There isn't as much concern about the European Parliament in Middle England as there should be. I noted four months ago that the big winner of the night when the UK counted its European Parliament voters was Yasmina from The Apprentice, as that aired on BBC One while the two BNP members elected to Parliament made their victory speeches on BBC Two. To further the apparent contempt shown for those elections, BBC dumped The Apprentice finale from its regular slot on Wednesday as to avoid conflicting with a World Cup qualifier game on ITV, where England demolished Andorra 6-0.

So what impact is a Conservative side shying away from its natural connections to the continent's centre-right and Christian Democrat parties in favour of parties with global warming sceptics and questionable stances on same-sex rights? Frankly, I doubt that's going to weigh on the mind of British voters when the next election rolls around. As much as UKIP would like the debate to be focused on the growing control of the European Parliament in Brussels/Strasbourg on UK affairs, parliamentary expenses, the economy and government spending will be front and centre in the next election, which again will be no later than 3 June.

Please note that I'm not in defence of this grouping. While the Tories formed this group of anti-Federalists to hammer a Jeffersonesque approach to running the EU, this new group only accounts for ten percent of MEPs. And given the far-right stance of some of these parties (including Latvia's TB/LNNK, which has only one MEP), they might be more suited for the BNP than the party set to form the next government no later than June.

Honeymoon over

Even if the Mrs. and I weren't able to go on honeymoon, it's about time I get back here. Only one post in the past month, not counting my earlier one today. That's not what I had in mind.

Rest assured, in-between the paperwork, CV-editing, dish-washing, etc., I will get back to posting here. More likely than not, a review of the Lisobn Treaty and likely appointment of Tony Blair to be Europe's John Hancock is on the books.

Norway's Parliament hands out $1.4 million for ability to sign disaster declarations

I can say with certainty that I was proud to play a part in helping Barack Obama winning this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. No, I didn’t hold up a campaign sign, order a T-shirt, or even cast my vote for the 11 Missouri electors that would have actually voted for him in Jefferson City, had he won 5500 more votes than John McCain.

Instead, I reported on a massive ice storm that blanketed the Ozarks in two inches of ice last January, some of which aired on CBS Radio’s hourly news reports. The system, which caused widespread tree damage and left large swaths of Arkansas, Missouri and Kentucky out of power for weeks, netted a federal disaster declaration from Obama during the second week of his Administration. As it turns out, this was just enough for a qualified nominator to submit Obama’s name to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, and more than enough for the committee to select him as this year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Certainly this had to play in the minds of those five Norwegian parliamentarians, huddling in the Storting each time Oslo picks up at least three inches of snow. No way could these five august leaders of this non-EU nation award a prize honouring a lifetime of accomplishments to world peace to someone who merely warms up much of the world with feel-good speeches. Someone whose successful bills in the U.S. and Illinois State senates didn’t include sweeping, world-changing measures like universal healthcare but instead bi-partisan measures on military transparency. How that translates into Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” I’m baffled.

Three U.S. presidents have received the Nobel Peace Prize prior to Obama. Teddy Roosevelt had just negotiated a peace treaty between the Russians and Japanese in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, when winning the award in 1906. Woodrow Wilson, upon winning in 1919, had convinced many of the world’s nations to sign up for the League of Nations, but not the U.S. Senate. And Jimmy Carter received the honour 20 years after his presidency, marked positively by the Camp David Accords but marred more by the Tehran Embassy hostage crisis and his ordering the boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, which resulted in Zimbabwe winning the gold medal in women's field hockey.

All those accomplishments and follies came before they received the prize. Obama, on the other hand, has during his presidency chaired one meeting of the United Nations Security Council, delivered speeches in three foreign capitals before fawning audiences, declared intentions to close Gitmo, make federal disaster declarations in the aftermath of mother nature’s worst, and most importantly not be George W. Bush. A list of accomplishments that, while incredible, seem pale when it comes to defining a lifetime of work for peace. And it would be foolish for the Committee to award a lifetime prize as an advance for the successful completion of a laundry list of lofty goals such as combating terrorism, providing health care for every American, and staving off global warming.

Most of Obama’s accomplishments in the White House have come since the February 1 deadline to submit nominees. Somehow, it’s amazing that Obama had made a contribution during his nascent administration that warranted a prize recognising lifetime achievement. Indeed it’s wonderful that a multi-ethnic child, who spent part of his childhood overseas, went to Harvard and built up communities in Chicago's South Side, overcame prejudice and adversity to become the figurative leader of the free world. Unfortunately, were this a viable reason to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, Chile’s Michelle Bachelet and Baroness Margaret Thatcher are still awaiting theirs.

So it’s between Norway beating the dead horse known as Bush’s legacy and Obama responding to a horrendous ice storm. And it would be just plain selfish for Norway’s five parliamentarians to put their grudges toward America’s cowboy diplomat above the ideals of Alfred Nobel’s will.

Enter the ice storm of January 2009. It had been forecasted days in advance, but its severity wouldn’t be known until it coated every tree branch, road surface, power line and for sale sign between Tulsa and Cincinnati with two inches of solid ice. The storm would find its way across the Atlantic, bringing much of Great Britain to a sliding halt the following week under a foot of snow.

Power crews responded from neighbouring areas as portable generators and wood stoves were in high demand. In Kentucky, where 24 people died as a result of the storm, Governor Steve Beshear called up every unit of the state’s National Guard to respond to the storm. In Northwest Arkansas, crews from as far as Pennsylvania and Minnesota trekked to the Ozarks to restore power and clear fallen branches.

And Obama? He signed the necessary documents on 27 January declaring parts of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, and Kentucky disaster areas, thus allowing federal aid to assist the recovery. A simple, routine stroke of the pen which further enabled government agencies from federal to town and county levels, churches, power companies, disaster relief agencies and neighbours to clear their streets and get back on the grid. Neighbours and crews which possibly included migrant workers and international representatives to Fortune 500 companies snowed in that week.

Congratulations, Mr. President. By helping 500,000 Americans recover from a vicious ice storm, you’ve just won the Nobel Peace Prize. It might have taken three weeks for some people to get back on the grid, but at least the world is a better place knowing that your disaster declaration kept people warm during the storm. Over cups of hot chocolate and buzzing chainsaws, Americans strengthen ties with themselves and the occasional foreign national, and most importantly cooperated to clear out all the Bradford pear trees which unfortunately couldn’t stand the weight of all that ice.