Blow for McKinnon as extradition treaty ruled 'not biased'
Extradition arrangements between the US and UK are not biased against British suspects, a review of the controversial extradition treaty concluded on Tuesday. The ruling is a setback for supporters of alleged Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon and others who have campaigned against the 2003 treaty, which they continue to argue is one …
This topic is closed for new posts.
On the bright side
"I truely despair for this country in 25 years time..."
I think every generation does this. Happily, progress still manages to occur (just not as quickly as we'd wish).
Re: One of the reasons why I admire Harold Wilson ...
Wasn't Harold Wilson responsible as head of the British government for the deportation of the inhabitants of the Diego Garcia atoll, so that the US military could operate from it?
You ain't seen nothing yet
This is a high profile case with a (relatively) sympathetic subject. I had a talk with a criminal defence lawyer about the european arrest warrant the other day - while his client was a bit of a shady character it was nonetheless quite astonishing how seamlessly the man was extradited to romania on the grounds of a more than dubious conviction.
Quite a lot of people - mostly obviously not worthy of too much compassion - will find themselves extradited to the other end of europe faster and on lesser grounds than it would take to arrest them in this country.
It's probably useless to argue that due process even for criminals is a protection afforded to the non-criminal class, is it? As we Europeans are always following the American's lead, expect 1% of the population behind bars in 30 years. (The american's had our incarceration rate in the 70ies, now they are beyond Red China in absolute numbers (!).
Gary's nine-and-a-half-year nightmare
Caused by him fighting extradition. If he had plea bargained instead, I'm sure he would have been back here long since.
fail_32.png
You mean that plea-bargain which holds no weight in a British court and wasn't even guaranteed by the people who were offering (Indimidating)?
Yea right, he was a nutter not to trust them....unhuh.
Never mind the entire farce leading up to this.
* Retroactively applied laws
* Imaginary damages picked out of the air by US to warrant extradition.
Anybody seeking to be informed about this case...
...should read the Jack of Kent blog from May and June of last year. I am actually being very serious about this. The blogger is a lawyer who has studied the source legal documents. You may be surprised at his conclusions...
Any American airbase in the UK is American soil, so
One solution would be that the trial held and any sentence leveraged take place at a American airbase in the UK, which is still American soil whilst negating any travel aspect to another country. He could then show as part of his sentence (IF found guilty BTW) in showing them how to create a perl scrip that runs a brute force disctonary attack upon there system etc as clearly they have need for protection from such clever hackers!
But an American airbase in the UK is technicaly and legaly American soil, without the need for any travel arrangments abroad being needed. This would be a comprimise. Aspect here is his health to stand trial and health to stand trial in another country and to serve sentence there. Aspergers is not a get out of jail free card, though this compromise would mitigate alot of the concerns that would need to be addressed. Fact is he did something that they deemed ilegal and a court needs to be held to get the facts and judge upon any sentence that should be bestowed upon him.
Personaly the fact this is being drawn out for so long and as such no definitive action/dates have been pursued will be casusing somebody with aspergers more distress medicaly than any trial in another country will be. I'd even go as far as saying that dragging things out for so long must be tourture for somebody with a condition that opens oneself up to anxiety based stress/depression due to it dragging on for so long. Heck I'd even say as its been a couple of years if he is mentaly able to stand trial and indeed have any sort of life as the effect would be if not already akin to permanant post traumatic stress disorder and he hasn't even stood trial yet atfer all these years. If I was in his shoes I'd be glad of the certianty of knowing a court date and location - even if it wasn't in the UK as after all those years I'd be a complete stress ball of uselessness that even bad news would be better than this permanant no news.
Actually...
they are not, all U.S. bases in the UK are MOD property. They are only leased to the United States. UK law still takes precedence. Now members of the US military are covered by SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) which means if they commit a crime in the UK it is tried by the military judicial system!
The irony is...
If the Americans had agreed to have had him tried over here - as his supporters have requested time and again - he'd have been tried, convicted, done his time and disappeared into obscurity by now...
The standard is the locale where the hack occured not where the perp was located
McKinnon will go to the U.S. for trial as he should have six years ago. If he is prosecuted and most likely he will be as he's already admitted hacking the military sites, then he will be sentence on the severity of his crimes and the cost that have resulted from said crimes.
Punishment is meant as a deterrent to the perp and other's who might be as foolish as a convicted criminal. Punishment is not meant to be a slap on the wrist or an equal exchange for damages done. If McKinnon gets 20 years in prison he's probably getting off easy for hacking multiple military computer systems. This was pure stupidity on hi part.
Re: The standard is the locale where the hack occured
If McKinnon had hacked computers in, let's say, France, Japan and Australia as well as the US, I wonder which jurisdiction would have the superior claim for extradition. Hmm?
@Original AC
>The standard is the locale where the hack occured not where the perp was located
No it isn't. You view certain porn from the UK hosted legally on a server outside the UK you are comitting a crime in the UK. Many adult sites have warnings not to continue if the material to be viewed is illegal in your country not theirs. This would at least indicate that many web administrators believe that any illegality occurs where the alleged offender is located.
@Me
I forgot gambling sites. Americans can't gamble on sites hosted outside the US because the offence they are comitting is an offence in the US not where the servers are based. So even the US government seems to accept that it is where the alleged offender is that counts.
@AC
By media accounts McKinnon performed a very basic attack that let him wander into what were for practical purposes, unsecured systems. He's being targeted the way he is as a warning to others, not because of the merits of his case.
WTF! Its equal, not biased?! ... Bullshit! ... Absolute Bullshit!
Frankly this case is a whole lot more important than any one hacker, whatever we think about him, because this case sets a legal precedent which we all must live by from here on out and today, after reading this news, I've heard enough from our endlessly debasing politicians. To call this treaty not biased is bordering on psychosis, so I very much doubt they even believe it themselves. In which case, its really just another lie to hide their real agenda, which is as ever, maintaining their UK special relationship with the US government.
I can't believe they say its not biased. I've had it up to here with our politicians lying mealy mouthed two faced bullshit. Who the fuck are they trying to fool, because no one I know will buy it. The treaty may be worded in principle as equal, but no way in hell will it be upheld in practice as equal. The US media and politicians would go bananas if we tried to extradite their citizens and rightly so. Meanwhile the US demands compliance from us all as if we are just another state in America.
Criminals should be tried in their own country, the country which has jurisdiction over its citizens. This treaty is an attempt to violate the principle of jurisdiction over citizens and in the case of our politicians, they will happily bend over and taken it gladly from the US politicians because our politicians think they have a special relationship with the US government. Meanwhile the US politicians laugh at our politicians and all of us for having such embarrassingly spineless politicians. So in effect, we get treated as if we are just another state of America because our politicians are complicit with the wishes and demands of US politicians.
And as for this next bit of bullshit ... "US authorities are not obliged to present any evidence when requesting extradition."
I mean really?! ... WTF! ... So they can now drag any of us out of our own country to be punished in the US, without even any evidence?!
Who the fuck allowed that one! ... Who the fuck thought "without any evidence" was right?! ... Our spineless politicians are supposed to represent us and protect us, yet this shows and proves a blatant violation of trust and allegiance to their fellow citizens. That is literally treason. All our politicians involved in this treaty have betrayed their position of trust and shown treachery against their own people by not adequately protecting all of us. Yet even worse, this review is suppose to make us believe they can't fucking see it! Its utterly inconceivable they can't see wrong in it and the reason they refuse to see wrong in it is because our politicians seek to maintain their so called special relationship with the US.
This so called special relationship that our politicians try so hard to maintain with the US appears to be systemic corruption in our government. It is therefore demonstrating their bias and in the case of writing and signing this treaty, it is demonstrating our politicians are guilty of literally treason against their own people. Our politicians are showing a blatant bias resulting in a violation of trust and allegiance to their fellow citizens.
Treason is an extremely serious criminal offense, especially from a member of Parliament, yet it very much appears we have systemic treason in our political system. So if we have any politicians with any decency and self respect remaining, I would now like to see them bring charges of treason against their corrupt colleagues. But I'm not holding my breath, because I expect too many of the corrupt politicians have enough power to resist being tried or even charged with treason. In which case, it'll prove beyond any remaining doubt, how deeply corrupt our political system has become. If that is the case, then its time for a regime change.
RE: WTF! Its equal, not biased?! ... Bullshit! ... Absolute Bullshit!
Oh, how that made me laugh! I do so hope that post was sarcasm, you would have a stellar career in comedy ahead of you. If not, then I suggest upping your meds and getting a good dose of reality.
It is equal.
You get to do the same thing to us.
So yeah, it's a lousy treaty agreed to by self-serving politicos, but if the electorates on both sides of the pond put self-serving politicos in power, they have no one to blame but themselves.
France has it right: No deportation but a trial in France
Britain is becoming a subservient nation, why else would the UK allow the US NSA to have a base in this country? No one, but no one has any base in the USA.
France has always stood up for it's rights, ever since DeGaulle was around.
If a crime was committed, allegedly, on British soil, it is a British offence. The fact that the American military is unable to secure it's computers is their weakness, not someone who actually gained access.
Time the wimp Cameron put some meaning in the phrase 'Great Britain' or does he aim to maintain the reputation of 'Broken Britain'?
"The fact that the American military is unable to secure it's computers is their weakness, not someone who actually gained access."
That simple sentence invalidates any other argument you may have, simply because it is total nonsense.
There are plenty of people around who would snigger at your home security. Are you saying, therefore, that if one of these people chooses to walk into your home while you're at work and take away all your valuables then that's OK? Actually I don't know why I'm asking. That is exactly what you're saying.
Your reasoning would not stand up in a court of law in the UK the US or indeed in any other country I can think of.
RE: France has it right: No deportation but a trial in France
"....why else would the UK allow the US NSA to have a base in this country?...." It's called intelligence sharing, rather useful in fighting international criminals, spying and terrorism.
"....No one, but no one has any base in the USA....." Not quite. For example, the British forces make much use of US bases inside the US for such fun as desert training. The US presence in the UK is because we asked them to stay in view of the post-War threat of the Soviets. They didn't really need us to do likewise in the US.
"....France has always stood up for it's rights, ever since DeGaulle was around...." De Gaulle was very anti-US and anti-UK because both Chruchill and Roosevelt didn't want him as the leader of the Free French during WW2. Instead, they wanted a rather more malleable French admiral to head up the Free French as part of the British forces rather than a separate entity. De Gaulle never forgave the Allies, even after the Yanks manufactured the Free French entry of Paris to appease him. Meanwhile, the OSS and MI6 decided to betray the French communists in the Underground, who were thought to be planning a post-War coup to take France into the Soviet sphere. So, having thoroughly upset both the Left and Right of French politics, it's no surprise that the French have remained anti-US to this day.
"....Time the wimp Cameron put some meaning in the phrase 'Great Britain'...." Surely standing by our treaty commitments and following legal process is a good thing, or do we only qualify as "great" if we go by your obviously biased views?
Re: American justice eh?
American justice is (despite all the court-room dramas that suggest such a thing exists) is an oxymoron.
Anyway, the claim than McKinnon's access to US military computers caused great costs (which include all the costs of securing systems which ought to have been secured in the first place) is pure nonsense, and any attempt to use those false numbers to justify a higher sentence is clearly injustice. The fact that the American authorities requiring this extradition have clearly stated there intent to so misuse these dishonest numbers ought to be enough to ensure that our government determines that this extradition will not take place. I'm appalled that it hasn't done so already.
Statute of Limitations
If Gary was an American citizen then I presume (and I haven't checked) that they wouldn't pursue this under their statute of limitations.
Almost 10 years of effort just to get the guy out of the UK for something that would carry at the most a 5 year sentence under the 1990 Computer Misuse Act is simply disproportionate.
The US Government would be far better off employing him as a security consultant - which I understand is what victims of hacking normally do.
Wrong
Had he done the same thing against UK computer systems, he would have been convicted under section 12 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. This comes from House of Lords judgement here: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/59.html
You presumed wrong.
The statute of limitations applies to filing charges. Once the charges are filed you can stay in court until there is a trial. And I for one won't give an inch on the "too frail because of advanced age" argument when it is his own court filings which have led to the advanced age.
Frankly he should come here and go on trial before a jury of his peers, which is what the treaty requires. If OJ could get off owning and stashing the bloody gloves for a double murder in his house, McKinnon can easily beat the rap on this case, confession not withstanding.
Again, John
due to your failure to read your own work and the failure of those responsible to proofread it properly, you have written a statement which is exactly the opposite of the facts and that which you actually intended to say.
Sure
"the treaty, which does not require UK authorities to make a preliminary case for extradition from the US"
/NOT
"McKinnon's fate now hinges on a review by Home Secretary Theresa May of medical evidence suggesting he is too weak to cope with the consequences of extradition to the US, a high-profile trial and imprisonment if convicted."
Hold on a mo, I thought part of the outcome of the review was that May should have this power removed anyway and that all such decisions should be made by a court. I have to say I agree over the years far too many legal powers have been claimed by the home secretary. There should be nobody anywhere in the country that has the power to override the law. Allow that and you might as well do away with the courts.
Missing the big picture.
All the posters whining on and on and ON about "poor ickle Gary", take a second and think what the real aim of the Septics is here - they want to make an example of him to deter other hackers, simple as that. They cannot allow someone to hack their systems and then get off scot free. They will use all legal avenues to get a conviction, and should they pass scrutiny here in the UK then they will get Mr McKinnon on a plane to the States. They will then proceed with a big show trial to ensure the message gets slammed home in ten-foot neon - don't fsck with the US military's networks. Regardless of how they may sympathise with his plight, the UK's politicians will also be mindful of the fact that they also want to discourage hackers, so they will not put up too much of a fight. McKinnon is stuffed by his own stupidity, and the longer he and his family and their supporters (many of the latter having their own agenda which doesn't really give two figs about McKinnon) draw it out the worse the eventual trial will be.
Thanks for the corrections everyone
However, given the delay in bringing this court a fair trial is unlikely. As for making an example of someone who from all accounts non-maliciously accessed computer systems that's just not a likely deterrent. It's as daft as those who thought the death penalty was a deterrent. It wasn't it just made people more determined not to get caught. Let's face it America puts more people in prison than any other country as far as I know they still have crime.
I stick by my original point it's far better for the US Government to have these people working for them than paying taxpayer dollars to incarcerate them and waste their skills. Had the US Government not publicised this, no-one would have been any the wiser.
This topic is closed for new posts.
