I'm gutted. Honestly I really am so gutted that a criminal is going to have to face justice. What a terrible world we live in
Gary McKinnon has lost a judicial review against his extradition to the United States on hacking charges. Lawyers for the Briton hoped his recent diagnosis with Asperger's Syndrome would be enough to persuade judges to overturn previous rulings and allow McKinnon to be tried in the UK. But Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Mr …
I'm gutted. Honestly I really am so gutted that a criminal is going to have to face justice. What a terrible world we live in
He should be tried here.
Well, the next time gov.uk claims that their latest piece of heavy handed 'anti-terror' legislation would never be used against ordinary citizens just say two words: Gary Mckinnon.
SEVENTY YEARS.... what a joke in the most incredibly poor taste.
I heard his mum talking on the Today show this morning - it's on the Today website at 07:15. She argued that his recently diagnosed Asperger syndrome prevented him from understanding "many social rules" and "they don't understand the consequences of their actions" and that he was only thinking of the "supressed information of the alien technology". My understanding is that Asperger Syndrome makes you fail to understand social mores, lack empathy, it makes you socially inept, possibly overly focused on single issues, and with a somewhat personalised form of logic - but it doesn't prevent you understanding right from wrong.
They've played it well, but I think it may be all over.
In the BBC report the ruling is reported as stating that extradition is:-
"a lawful and proportionate response to his offending. "
Surely they mean his *alleged* offending? While McKinnon has admitted hacking he *hasn't* been convicted of any crime and so cannot be considered to be guilty of committing an offence.
Another case of "Guilty until proven innocent" in Police State Britain?
Bit like another photographer nicked under "anti-terror" laws:-
Can we put him on a plane now please? . You know they will appeal again . He has spent so many years dodging the sentence he undoubtedly would of been out and back by now had he just faced it down at the start .
He'll go to America.
They'll put him in an open prison, with access to his laywers, family and friends. They'll feed him well, they'll keep him safe, they'll try him fast.
He'll be convicted and probably won't see a custodial sentence. If he does, he'll probably be repatriated in under a week.
We may cuss and complain, but the US probably isn't quite the ogre we make it out to be. In the past five years, we've gone beyond them in how nasty we're willing to be to our own.
Hey, I may be wrong, but thats my gut feeling.
Just to make it clear, this was a legal longshot, more in the hope of generating publicity. From a legal standpoint I'm told it had little chance of success, so please don't start the usual tired tirade about it all being an "establishment cover-up" or saying that the judges are just "pawns of the government", etc, etc. You can moan all you like about the one-sidedness of the extradition treaty, but it is still law, and McKinnon has admitted to a crime covered by that agreement, so until that law is changed he's just buying time (at the taxpayers' expense) until he gets shipped off to the Septics. To change that law would require an act of parliament, and that is not likely to complete before McKinnon is in the clutches of the US courts.
Personally, I think that his lawyers are just enjoying the attention, the publicity and no doubt the large paycheques they are getting off this. He should have just gone quietly, done a deal with the Yanks and probably done minimum time in one of their more comfortable prisons, and he'd probably already be back out. Unfortunately, he got collared by the anti-establishment crowd, and they filled his head with stupid ideas about being sent off to Gitmo for life, and ever since the same parasites have just been using him as media bait.
Criminal? No. Tw@t? Yes.
1) AIUI he committed no crime in the UK
2) He didn't "hack" as such, just walked through the open doors on USA computers
3) The USA ratified the treaty 2006, but it is still biased in favour of the USA
Point 3 is enough for me to reject his extradition. Point 1 as well. Point 2 is enough for a slap on the wrist and a "You're old enough to know better" chidding. As for the "damage"....if the USA was negligent enough to leave their systems wide open - then that is their lookout.
The USA should be told to sod off and our MPs brought to book for siging a treaty that skates very close to treason IMHO.
You have to pay for penetration testers.
In so far as I understand, he caused no damage - cost incurred were to fix the security hole he used.
Yes. I think you may be deliberately missing the point. I believe the question is more _where_ he should face justice, the degree to which the charges he faces have been trumped up and what our government's roll-over-good-doggie attitude to the extradition question says about our society.
Still. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?
(Sorry. Couldn't resist the hungry look on his little troll face...)
Facing justice is one thing, but he should be facing it in the country where he commited the crime, in this instance the UK. Suppose he'd posted something on a forum about Islam and Sudan decided they wanted to extradite him for breaking their law, people wouldn't stand for it. But when it's the US doing the demanding we roll over.
He commited crimes in breach of the Computer Misuse Act and should be tried on that basis. If he really must be tried in the US then it should be under UK law (as the Lockerbie trial was done in The Hague under Scots Law.
Our judicial system is as corrupt as our government.
I know it's a dream and wont happen but I hope the Tories when they get in next year sack every single one of these complete wastes of space in public sector, quangos, the police and the judiciary that Labour has managed to get in place.
It's sickening that Labour has corrupted this country to it's very core, yes I know the Tories are no different but oh well, one can always dream.
If only there was a party with a chance of getting in power that was actually not corrupt.
If McKinnon goes to the US, he's seriously f**ked. He'll be banged up for the rest of his natural. The US have spent so much time and effort trying to extradite this sad little bastard that anything other that a conviction and maximum sentence is out of the question.
If he hangs around, he's going to jail for the rest of his life.
If he does a runner and gets caught, he goes to jail for the rest of his life.
Nothing to lose.
Time to run.
Just remember people, most of you voted for this shower of shite government 3 times. Not just once, not twice, but THREE F*****G times.
So when u whinge and gripe about their policies, just remember that.
I fucked off out the UK after Blair got voted in a second time.
As for Gary, I'm dissapointed and feel for him and his family. However it was bound to happen. Toothless, pointless, useless Government leads to this sort of shite.
MASSIVE FAIL on part of people representation.
He should have checked out the comment threads here. Far more evidence.
But then, why are people so cynical about his chances of getting a fair trial in the US. Don't you think they'd take into consideration his medical condition?
We have to form a "lets help Gary" group and lets use a piece of 'Asparagus' as our symbol of unity against the legal processes of this country...!
I suppose it all depends on your definition of "justice".
Look, no one is denying that McKinnon was a bad boy and broke the law. What people are saying is that the poor bastard is going to be skinned alive by a foreign nation in a manner disproportionate to his actual crime.
Worse still we all know this, our Govt knows this and we're handing him over on the grounds that the US said so. For us to try a US citizen we have to have proof, strong proof, before they hand that citizen over. The crime also will have had to be commited on UK soil. For them to "request" us to hand the ass of one of our citizens over the US seemingly needs nothing more than "because we said so".
This guy commited 2 crimes, both on UK soil (one was the hacking, the 2nd was to make the US look like a fool, and in yank eyes there is pretty much no greater crime), so he should be tried in a UK court. Not some bigotted, biased, political agenda ridden US Kangaroo Court.
Mckinnon did wrong, yes, I agree, but the guy is being sacrificed to NuLabour's "political expediency" and the so called special relationship (read UK bent over, US standing behind) between UK and US. Don't be so damn naive to think that UK Govt won't sell the entire population to Satan if it thought it would make for a nice life for them.
Yes this subject makes me angry....
I call troll.
Same as any other criminal that flees to a country with an extradition treaty. Commit a crime in a country, get sent there to be tried. There isn't any good reason why he shouldn't be boxed up and sent over.
... had actually found real evidence of UFO's, ET and the rest. It would be an entirely different story and humankind would be different.. But no he didnt get real evidence so here we are... Just do the time, he got caught and we are no better off for his effort..
CIA will probably give him a job when he gets over there any how.. Keeping your enemies closer and all that jazz.....
The damages claim is inflated to obtain extradition, his job is to protect Brits from extradition where the conditions are not met. The conditions have not been met. He has to approve extradition and he can simply put politics aside and refuse.
Or are we going to start accepting that the US can extradite Brits based on lies?
Because that is the hill we're starting down here. A treaty intended to handle extradition of serious crimes is being used for a crime so petty that it's not worth prosecuting in the UK, and was not for a long time worth prosecuting in the US either.
Once extradited, they cannot give him a petty sentence based on the *actual* damage, having started with the lie, they have to follow it through, pretend he's a cyber-terrorist in need of serious punishment.
Thus the need to exaggerate to meet the conditions needed to get an extradition, means the sentence any Brit would face must also be exaggerated in order not to admit the lie.
Really Mr Johnson should read the details, spot the lie, say "I work for Britain not the US and thus can't go along with this lie" and reject the extradition request.
Did you only read about this case in the 5 seconds before you posted that comment? And did you absorb more than 6 words?
The case was about where he would face justice, not if.
RTFA (or ask someone to explain it to you).
Don't think it helped that (from what I read), part of the defence rested on his claims of "what I did was morally justified".
Still, was optimistic this would be the end of it, but no - another 4 weeks to appeal.
... as Britain becomes ever more subservient to the US.
It will only get worse in the future
Neu Labour have made this country "America's bitch" and now we have to bend over and take it - thanks Blair, Brown & Co, and all those spineless sacks of shit which infest Parliament who supported this.
I note the US wasn't so reciprocal in this bilateral treaty [sic], but that's no surprise. Only traitors sell their sovereignty down the river.
How do you know he's a criminal? He hasn't been tried yet. Have you been following the story? Do you have the slightest clue what you're talking about?
... with every purchase of a Happy Meal!
Sorry, just popped into my head.
On a serious note, I really don't get it. He committed an offense in this country. He was not in the US. Why is he being extradited?
...is the lax security employed on the systems in the first place. Given the nature of the systems affected, the sysadmins responsible along with the IS Security Team should be the ones on trial here. McKinnon did them all a favour!
Show some backbone you disingenuous craven buffoons.
That it all.
they've still not published what he ACTUALLY did and WHY the US of A want him. Clue: he won't be locked up.
>>Well, the next time gov.uk claims that their latest piece of heavy handed 'anti-terror' legislation would never be used against ordinary citizens just say two words: Gary Mckinnon.
Please read that again and spot the Epic Fail in your logic.
He'll be forgotten.
Anyone remember what happened to the "Natwest Two" (or was it three..).
UK = Epic fail.
He hacked a load of Government computers in the states; and now the US want him prosecuted for it there. If a US citizen did the same to UK army computers etc we'd be asking for the same thing and be pissed the US was playing big and mighty with us if they refused.
Asperger's or not, malicious or not, he is guilty and he knew he was doing something wrong. Send him to the states and lets hear the last of this thing already.
I sadly get the impression they tried to blag it to be here and when that failed he suddenly got diagnosed with Aspergers. Funny that don't ya think?
No need for expensive lawyers and lengthy appeals.
To save Kevin a member of the public need only to walk into their local Magistrates Court and lay a complaint against Mr McKinnon for the crimes he has previously admitted.
Its the right of any individual to do this and would mean he would be tried or acquitted here in the UK.
Paris - Because she would make a lovely McKenzie Friend to assist him.
The diagnosis really shouldn't get him out of facing trial for his actions, nor should it change which court the trial is held in. I'm with AC4 on this: he broke the law (and admitted it). Asperger's is a poor excuse for committing the crime in the first place, and no justification at all for trying him in a UK court rather than a US one.
Those who want him tried here instead: would you still be arguing this way if he faced the stiffer sentence on this side of the Atlantic? It's not as if he won't get a fair trial - although his admission of guilt renders that largely academic anyway - it's just about whether or not he gets off with a lighter sentence.
It's time this government grew a pair and told America to just fuck off.
Ronnie Biggs missed a trick - no need to go to Brazil, just keep appealing.
He should be tried in public, and all the evidence should be available for public inspection before, during and after the trial because the US military should be made - in public - to look as obviously stupid as they are.
Maybe then they'd stop bleating about terrible damages which represent a less than a half of a half of a half of a half of one percent of their operational budget and are entirely their own fault for leaving their computers unsecured. Maybe they'd stop complaining about 'massive' system downs which only last 24 hours. Maybe they'd admit that their sysadmins are measurably piss-poor for taking a year before they spotted someone was hacking in.
But I doubt it.
US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days.
They get the increasingly thankless task of navigating the morass of ill-conceived legislation crammed through by twitchy govts (seemingly with half a sleepy eye on tomorrow's red-top SCANDAL!! headline). A saddening report on the Lord Chief Justice's recent speech on this:
And of course in this case the UK govt feels itself hostage to the "special relationship" with all the rich and varied dividends that brings to the UK
(sfx: wind howling, loose door banging, tumbleweed bouncing down street)
Government 1 doesn't want to offend or upset Government 2, so citizen 1 can go get fucked.
Done and dusted. Totally. The appeal strategy should have been to move to Northern Cyprus or some other such place etc.
>but it doesn't prevent you understanding right from wrong.
But it does stop you from being able to control your impulse to do what you know might be wrong. Obsessive–compulsive disorder is very powerful, you just have to do whatever has got into your head. Failure to do so will bring on extreme panic attacks that you feel will never end until you have done whatever it is.
Private prosecutions can ONLY go ahead if the CPS allow them to.
What do you think the chances of that are?
The American accused of British copyright crimes against the National Portrait Gallery? Why does not Britain insist on his extradition if they're willing to let McKinnon go to the US? Here we have an American accused of British crimes, where all the evidence of such is in Britian, even though he is in the US. Seems a rather neat reversal of the McKinnon case, don't you? If they're willing to let McKinnon go, they should at the same time insist that Coetzee come to Britain for the violations of copyright he's been accused. As they say, fair's fair.
With Government employees in the States able to download Limewire, there's no need to hack anymore?
"He hacked a load of Government computers in the states; "
No *YOU* hacked a load of computers in the US and now they want *YOU* extradited.
Now you might assume that they would have to produce evidence to extradite you, and their failure to produce any evidence, let alone evidence to convince a judge, would mean an epic fail.
Sadly no. The UK judge isn't allowed to see or review any evidence. You will be extradited.
Now consider the reverse case. American Bud Armstrong is charged in the UK with hacking computers and extradition is demanded. Now for the extradition to go ahead, the US Judge needs to see the evidence for extradition and that needs to be strong enough to extradite.
Epic fail, because the judge can see and review the evidence (or lack thereof).
So what Alan Johnson is doing here is accepting that the evidence doesn't need to match the extradition conditions. So the treaty is meaningless. It was intended for serious crimes, and is being used for a crime so petty it was a 'no further action' in the UK.
So the treaty is one sided, and this is the first test of it with a clear bullshit damages amount and Alan Johnson shows loyalty to the US above McKinnon (not surprisingly since McKinnon is an ass and Johnson needs to be nice to the US.)
Who cares about McKinnon! The real crime here is the removal of judicial protections in the UK.
Well considering McKinnon has "owned up" that point is moot. What isn't moot is the government taking responsibility for protecting it's citizens from the actions of hostile foreign powers, which include - among other things - clear obligations not to send *anyone* (citizen or otherwise) to countries that are suspected of practicing torture. You do know he committed the "crime" (so heinous that the CPS couldn't be arsed to prosecute) in 2001 and is being extradited under a treaty from 2003, ratified in 2006? If you think sending a citizen to face "justice" in a foreign court under circumstances like that is "responsible", you are a moron.