| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| EU High Court Invalidates Sanctions Against Al Qaeda |
| 2008-09-03 |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #11 Leave some work for the admin of the computers he hacked into |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2008-09-03 20:59 |
| #10 #9 The hacker is not going to die if he is found guilty, so send him away, they think. Posted by: Alaska Paul There's an old saw that the punishment should fit the crime. I suggest this doofus be made to answer all the spam email that gets spread around the United States. Each time it appears, he has to write a full, one-page response. I'll gladly forward him all of mine. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-09-03 20:50 |
| #9 The hacker is not going to die if he is found guilty, so send him away, they think. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2008-09-03 20:32 |
| #8 The European court is usually quite reasonable. A few days ago they rejected the appeal of a UK hacker not to be extradited to the US. He had hacked into US military computers causing extensive damage) |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2008-09-03 19:39 |
| #7 It's called the Ninth Circus over here. :-D (Including among lawyers. They do it so often that a lawyer arguing before them actually slipped and said that to the court sometime last winter. Heh.) |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-09-03 19:35 |
| #6 the Ninth Circuit for sure |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2008-09-03 19:30 |
| #5 Thanks for the inside information, EC. The workings of European courts and governments seem a little weird to Americans - just as I'm sure our courts and governments seem weird to you all. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-09-03 19:27 |
| #4 They didn't have to They allowed the authorities three months to modify the conditions of the freeze (which is not lifted until then). So the authorities can declare a new freeze and tell the guy to appear in a European court |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2008-09-03 19:06 |
| #3 It's a pity they didn't rule the assets frozen until the miscreants personally appeared to present their respective cases. |
| Posted by: Woozle Unusosing8053 2008-09-03 19:02 |
| #2 Actually it's just a procedure thing. The Court ruled that people whose assets are frozen must be allowed to make their case. There must be a legal recourse. The court simply ruled that you cannot simply be put on a list and have your assets frozen without ever been heard. Errors can occur, as well. With Arabic names, a bit more often. It did rule that freezing may well occur before the person in question is heard. He will be heard and his assets will remain frozen unless he can exonerate himself. Which of course he can't. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2008-09-03 18:07 |
| #1 Wusses. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-09-03 17:20 |