McKinnon will not be extradited to the US, says Home Secretary
The Home Secretary has blocked Gary McKinnon's extradition to the US. In a statement to Parliament on Tuesday, Theresa May said that long-running extradition proceedings against the 46 year-old Asperger's Syndrome sufferer would be withdrawn on medical and human rights grounds. Psychiatrists warned that the Scot was likely to …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: Right decision for the wrong reason
No, because you are committing a number of crimes in this country. Murder, setting off a dangerous firework, interfering with aircraft movements, and various offences under the various terrorism acts. We might decide to try you here, we might extradite you to Iran, but I think more likely that for reasons of State when the police caught up with you you'd be found to be pointing a pistol at one of them, and you'd be shot.
Re: Right decision for the wrong reason
Ahh -- But how would you feel about someone else making that judgement for you?
Re: Right decision for the wrong reason
How about the people that dress up in nazi costume fancy dress? Ought they all be extridited to Germany where such actions are illegal?
How about me currently living in sin by sharing a bed with my unmarried partner? Better pack us off to Dubai.
If a crime is commited in this country, then it should be charged, tried and punished in this country. If someone does something which is not a crime in this country then they should be safe from extradition.
In your example, would you rather such a person be extradited to a country where they would then be tortured and killed? I wouldnt.
Re: Right decision for the wrong reason
"W" and his Prince of Darkness (Veep) wanted a sacrifice, a demonstration of commitment from the UK. The present regime has decided that the gain is not worth the noise - and of course, as usual the British government falls in with it's masters wishes. If this decision had not already been cleared with Washington it would not have happened regardless fo how deserving this guy's case might be. I wish him of course the best of luck and hope for his sake and his family that this business may finally be over.
Re: Right decision for the wrong reason
"How about the people that dress up in nazi costume fancy dress? Ought they all be extridited to Germany where such actions are illegal?"
If you flew to Germany and did it on their soil and flew back home, then yes.
Which is the proverbial case both with Gary (hacking systems in the US, and hence committing the crime there) and in the example given (murdering people in Iran, hence committing the crime there).
Your examples are logical fallacies.
Re: Right decision for the wrong reason
Just because the "victim" is in the US, doesn't mean that the perpetrator is. It's the location of the perpetrator that matters. If Gary wasn't in the US when he committed the crime, and likewise hasn't set foot in the US since, then I'm sorry, they have fuck-all business with him.
Sure, the US should hand over the evidence to the UK and ask us to prosecute him if he's broken any of our laws. But he should never have been considered to be under US Jurisdiction.
In the same way that if I tried to start a reasoned debate on an Austrian website about whether or not the Holocaust actually happened (for the record, I'm pretty damn sure it did), I would not expect to be extradited to Austria under their Holocaust denial laws, to spend years rotting in prison there, because I've never been to Austria. On the other hand, if the UK CPS deemed me to be grossly offensive, and that it was in the public interest, then they could prosecute me under whatever UK law I happened to fall under.
Or, say there's a server hosted in a devoutly Muslim country that's hosting porn. If I access that porn, should they be able to extradite me to their country and inflict whatever punishment they see fit?
Top and bottom of it is, you don't always know what the nationality of the server is that you're accessing. And enough people don't know the laws of their own country, let alone the laws of countries hosting websites and servers they may end up accessing, maybe without even realising it.
On a slightly related note, there was talk of the UK government making it illegal for British citizens to have sex with under-16s in foreign countries where it would not normally be illegal. Now, although I thoroughly accept and condone the good intent of this, in my eyes, the same principles apply: the law applies to physical location of perpetrator, not to nationalities of perpetrator or victim, nor to location of victim. It's a slippery slope. Jurisdictional creep has already gone too far - it needs to be pushed back on by all civilised society.
Re: Right decision for the wrong reason
"It's the location of the perpetrator that matters. If Gary wasn't in the US when he committed the crime, and likewise hasn't set foot in the US since, then I'm sorry, they have fuck-all business with him."
The law doesn't agree with you.
At the extreme end of the scale, war criminals are routinely tried in countries where they committed no crime. Hell: Some German citizens have been hung in Israel, after being snatched from Argentina for crimes committed in the Ukraine. And bloody good job, too!
Likewise, should a criminal that commits electronic fraud based in a country that has no laws against it be completely immune to prosecution of any kind, should the money be taken from another country?
Many 'kingpins' behind organised crimes or terrorist acts have never committed crimes in their own country, so should they be immune to prosecution in the country where the acts were perpetrated?
Your position of 'it's none of their business' stance just doesn't stand up to reasonable scrutiny when it comes down to actual justice. Sometimes Extradition is the only way to ensure justice is done. Sure: A lot of times recently it's been horribly misused, and generally I believe crimes should be tried in the country the person was in where it is reasonable and a fair trial is viable (remember that often extradition can result in a FAIRER trial, rather than a jury-less hatchet-job with confessions gained by beatings). However, in a global environment, people should not be allowed to dodge the repercussions from crimes committed just because they're the 'right' side of a line on a map.
Curiouser and curiouser
I thought both coalition parties had indicated they were opposed to this extradition, so why do I have a faint feeling of surprise that they've done just that?
Re: Curiouser and curiouser
Perhaps they think if Romney gets in then what may subsequently happen to McK under that swivel-eyed lunatic would reflect badly on their agreeing the extradition down the road.
Oh for goodness sake
Please let this be a one-off, as I wouldn't want to start thinking of our government as decent people.
Re: Oh for goodness sake
Ditto - add the Daily Mail to that list also!
Re: Our government as decent people
I suspect May came to the decision more to protect the government from the consequences of extradition should Gary have topped himself rather than to protect his own human rights. None the less, no matter how self-serving, it was the right decision to make.
Her other moves, which appear aimed to reduce rather than extend the right to challenge extradition, would seem to suggest it's far too soon to start thinking of government as decent people.
excellent news
<-- I'd like to buy him one of these
now we just need to fix the system that allowed this to get so far (& explain to our cousins that their legal system stops when it reaches the Atlantic)
Re: excellent news
Atlantic? Isn't that somewhere in Georgia?
Good, but he should still stand trial for his alleged crimes
I'm glad that some sense has finally been seen, however I don't think there's a reason to say he shouldn't still be tried for his alleged crimes here.
Having Aspergers doesn't give one carte blanche to do whatever one pleases and then claim he didn't know any better, having Aspergers doesn't mean he doesn't know right from wrong. He should stand trial for his alleged crimes in the country in which he allegedly committed them....
Re: Good, but he should still stand trial for his alleged crimes
He should be tried here, as he should have been long ago. But the years of misery inflicted on him so far already need to be taken into account in any sentencing.
I also seem to recall that we have different criteria and sentencing for what he did than the USA? Anyone?
@h4rm0ny
The 'misery' was entirely self inflicted. It was only his constant appeals that kept it going on this long.
I don't care where he goes as long as he gets properly prosecuted for breaking the law.
Re: Good, but he should still stand trial for his alleged crimes
I should hope a suspended sentence mostly marked as time-served bar 10 months, perhaps.
Of course 'guilty of a minor infraction with 20 hrs community service' would be a fitting poke in the eye to the folk west of Ireland. (Or even 'not guilty, systems were insecure therefore never actually "hacked"' would be ideal)
Re: Good, but he should still stand trial for his alleged crimes
Personally I think that the years of misery inflicted have far exceeded any proportionate sentence he might have received had he been tried here for the alleged offence within a sensible timeframe. Sometimes panicking and ignorant judges and politicians hand out ridiculously long sentences. Timothy Leary got 30 years in Texas for marijuana posession in the sixties. They used to burn alleged witches also, for similar reasons.
McKinnon fell victim of the ignorance of politicians concerning computer crime combined with terrorism paranoia following 11/9/2001 . He should have received a hundred hours community service in my understanding in relation to what he actually did. Maybe that's why they are considering introducing a judicial filter earlier on in such cases where extradition is requested and entirely inappropriate. Makes complete sense.
Re: @h4rm0ny
That self-inflicted misery certainly kept him from further much more miserable US-based misery.
I call that a win.
Re: "Years of Misery"
While I fully agree that this has gone on far, far too long. The "years of misery" are, as others have said, in part due to his constant appeals and re-appeals. That's not to say I think he was wrong to do so, I'd sure as hell to the same if I were in his boat, however a crime has [allegedly] been committed and he should have to stand trial for that crime in the country where they were apparently committed. Just because you've managed to drag out the and won the extradition appeals process does not mean you should be excused of your alleged crimes.
Though that said, I guess there a statute of limitations on computer crime? (I probably should know that anyway)
Re: Good, but he should still stand trial for his alleged crimes
Actually Aspergers does affect his concepts of "right and wrong". From his perspective he wanted to find out the information so he went and found it. He didn't hurt anyone or anything so he fails to see how he has done anything wrong. Autism greatly affects a persons view of the world and their interpretation of it and how they interact with others. A fact I know well as my 4 year old son is autistic.
Re: Good, but he should still stand trial for his alleged crimes
My brother has Apergers and he sure as hell knows right from wrong. In fact it's his ranting about how he shouldn't get off scott free when he read the story that prompted me to make my post.
I agree that sometimes people with other forms of autism sometimes don't know the difference, however it is my, and my bother's, understanding that most if not all aspergers sufferers do know that difference.
Re: Good, but he should still stand trial for his alleged crimes
Reasonable order in society depends very heavily on the self control of almost all citizens. If Mr. McKinnon's understanding of right and wrong actions is so skew to the laws and understanding of most people, is there not an argument that he should not be allowed personal liberty? I realize that's a dangerous argument, but there also are dangers in excusing antisocial or illegal behavior based on claims of illness.
Re: Good, but he should still stand trial for his alleged crimes
I wonder if a clinical psychologist would agree with your brother. Because when it comes to right and wrong, most of the population have some very grey areas.
Example:
My wife was surprised to learn a short time ago that a respectable retired Headmaster didn't see anything at all wrong with VAT fraud, but was very angry about tax avoidance.
Re: Good, but he should still stand trial for his alleged crimes
I suggest you might want to visit a magistrate's court, or just read the reports in your local paper. You might get a big surprise as to the level of "self control of almost all citizens", and what you have to do to get locked up.
Re: Good, but he should still stand trial for his alleged crimes
USA law is just that, not English law. So, which English (or possibly EU adopted into English law) laws did he break and if he did, why not try him here? If he did, are they criminal or civll offences?
Or, with your approach, when are you off to Saudi Arabia because of the alcohol you like to drink? Humanity: consuming or possessing cannabis is illegal in GB. How many people do you know (perhaps even yourself) have you reported to the police because you saw them with cannabis at some party? Or are laws with which you disagree fit only ot be broken with impunity?
Some of you are just ghastly people and, I hope, never in a position of responsibility for others. Or move to USA as its style seems to appeal to you.
Re: Good, but he should still stand trial for his alleged crimes
"A fact I know well as my 4 year old son is autistic."
So you are lecturing us with expert opinion of Aspergers, based on experience with a 4 year old with full-blown Autism? I'm sorry that your Son suffers from that condition, but both the more severe nature of it and his age put a world of difference between your experience with him and this case, or indeed any adult with Aspergers.
There is also a big difference between understanding right and wrong and understanding the law. One doesn't have to understand the law in order to know and obey it. I don't honestly understand why I should stick to 70mph on a dry, empty, straight piece of road in a 150mph-capable car. But I know that I will still be punished if I do not obey that law and am responsible if I choose to ignore that law.
Re: Good, but he should still stand trial for his alleged crimes
@ AC 15.52
I'm not sure if your post was aimed at me or the other posters but here goes; For one, I'm not sure anyone has posted anything ghastly, a crime has allegedly been committed, the prime suspect for that should face justice for his actions. Having a disability like Aspergers cannot, and should never be a means to escape justice.
I'm not sure I fully follow your point, drinking alcohol isn't illegal in this country, on the other hand using your PC to illegally access a computer system(s) for which you are not authorised to do so, most certainly is illegal. I have to say I don't associate with people who smoke cannabis any more, at least as far as I know, heck I may have even tried it myself many moons ago, (but i didn't inhale ;-)) so should I report myself for something that last happened 20 years ago? Really?
I do take a liberal interpretation of speed limits when road conditions allow however whilst yes, legally speaking, speeding, even when road conditions allow, is illegal and therefore "bad", it's not quite in the same league of "bad" as hacking into the military and scientific computer systems of an ally nation.
As for what crimes he's alleged to have committed, I'm no lawyer but I'll kick off with sections one and two of the Computer Misuse Act for a start.
Now, the question of whether he will stand trial here is another matter, it's my understanding that the processing his computer after his arrest was not in line with DPP guidelines as a result of US over eagerness (quelle suprise).
I for one am glad that he is not being sent to the US, however I do also hope that he faces a court to account for his [alleged] actions.
"...a statute of limitations on computer crime?..."
No.
In the UK, there is only a statute of limitations for CIVIL claims.
There is no statute of limitations for any criminal act.
Re: "...a statute of limitations on computer crime?..."
Thanks Ted.
Re: Good, but he should still stand trial for his alleged crimes
"USA law is just that, not English law. So, which English (or possibly EU adopted into English law) laws did he break and if he did, why not try him here? If he did, are they criminal or civll offences?"
Computer Misuse Act. Obviously the thing that he can't be tried for here is the US equivalent of breach of the Official Secrets Act, which is the meat of the offence. For while computer misuse carries a relatively minor penalty, breach of national security can put you in jail for life. Both sets are criminal offences.
Obviously there is no legal recourse for prosecuting a UK citizen in the UK for American national security offences. Which is why they wanted to extradite him.
"Or, with your approach, when are you off to Saudi Arabia because of the alcohol you like to drink? "
About ten years ago. I thought it'd help me cut down. Turns out there's more alcoholics over there than here.
Although it's interesting that you bring that up, seeing as BAe got their arse kicked legally in this country for dishing out bribes in the Kingdom, where it's perfectly legitimate normal business practice. So "my approach" appears to be shared by our legal system.
"How many people do you know (perhaps even yourself) have you reported to the police because you saw them with cannabis at some party? Or are laws with which you disagree fit only ot be broken with impunity?"
So the Stasi were a good idea?
Look, that entire paragraph was total hypocrisy on your behalf. Unless YOU grass your friends up to the police for every offence that they commit - from littering (which is about as severe a crime as smoking weed in this country, by the way), through speeding, through pinching pens from work or paying tradesman in cash so it doesn't go through the books - then you are being a massive hypocrite for telling me "Or are laws with which you disagree fit only ot be broken with impunity?"
"Some of you are just ghastly people and, I hope, never in a position of responsibility for others."
Waah. 'Ghastly'.
Ignored for the past 10 YEARS!
No-one has ever actually answer the bigger question: did he FIND any evidence of UFOs??!!
Re: Ignored for the past 10 YEARS!
Sadly no, he didn't....
Re: Ignored for the past 10 YEARS!
I think he was supposed to have found a list of personnel assigned to a "Space Command" which he interpreted as US-crewed spacecraft rosters - but it could have meant anything, e.g. the people who control GPS satellites.
Re: Ignored for the past 10 YEARS!
I watched an interview with him in which he said he found evidence of exactly what he was searching for. Look at 6.50 in the video... he found it. No doubt, it's all been covered up. Surprise, surprise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4PkNPCEnJM
Re: Ignored for the past 10 YEARS!
The only UFO's he was likely to find were unidentified fingering objects at Guantanamo Bay.
Re: Ignored for the past 10 YEARS!
"I think he was supposed to have found a list of personnel assigned to a "Space Command" which he interpreted as US-crewed spacecraft rosters - but it could have meant anything, e.g. the people who control GPS satellites."
Yes, 'Space Command' handle all the space-related equipment, i.e. satellites (spy, comms, GPS). Also the ground-based radar that tracks debris which threatens those satellites and things like the ISS, Space Shuttle (until it retired).
The argument "the system wasn't secure enough for breaking in to be illegal" really bugs me. If a weak password made it legal to break into a computer, how fancy does my front door or car lock have to be to get legal protection? It's possible to break into some cars by jiggling a coat-hanger under the door window, does that make it OK to break into those models now?
Even if my password or door lock is a "weak" one, I want the law to 'tear a new one' in the little scrote who breaks in - physically or virtually, I don't care which. Yes, I secure my systems and lock my doors, but I want there to be serious consequences as far as possible for anyone who does break in, or indeed try to do so.
Re: Re: Ignored for the past 10 YEARS!
".....he said he found evidence of exactly what he was searching for....." And that evidence is.... nothing. In short, the whole UFO line was just a pathetic excuse added long after the initial arrest to garner public sympathy.
His real crime
was showing the US military as incapable of even basic security - like changing default passwords. The USA claim that he caused them to spend millions of work fixing up after he 'broke' in. This is work that the idiots should have done in the first place. They should be thanking him, not castigating him.
McKinnon himself: he should not have done what he did, that is beyond doubt. But the penalty was too high; the USA would not have played fair.
Punnishing people because they have embarrased you is wrong.
Re: His real crime
How true.
All these idiots have succeeded in doing is make themselves look like even bigger idiots by kicking up such a bloody fuss about it.
Re: His real crime
"All these idiots have succeeded in doing is make themselves look like even bigger idiots by kicking up such a bloody fuss about it." -- They have also pretty much ruined 10 years of McKinnon's life without him ever having stood a trial, that's yet to come. It's win win for the US as they will have achieved what they wanted regardless of the outcome of a trial, only the minimum reward for the US now is 10 years of McKinnon's life and a deterioration of his health, anything after this point is now a bonus for them.
I feel that when this gets to court, the due diligence for basic IT security principals that were not met by US military IT staff will get the complainants laughed from the court room.
Re: Re: His real crime
Miek and all the other legal experts need to go talk to a real lawyer. McKinnon has admitted to breaking the law, got that? He broke a law. He can try and wriggle out of it on some bullshine excuse of Aspergers, but then he has to bring his experts to court to PROVE he was unable to tell right from wrong, and from the taunting messages he left on the systems it would appear he not only KNEW he was breaking the law but also did not have an "innocent intent".
If he is that traumatised and unable to tell right from wrong then he should be sectioned.
Wow a British goverment willing to stand up to their US counterparts. I hope we see future governments follow in their footsteps.
> I hope we see future governments follow in their footsteps.
Highly unlikely.
To quote Churchill:
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
Timing...
I note that this occurs just a week or so after Abu Hamza was shipped off to the good ol' US of A.
Almost like they planned this to get rid of the ones the public didn't like and keep the one who they do like, for you know, PR points or something.
Suspicious? Me? Nah, not at all.
Re: Timing... Not so difficult.
Gary McKinnon = One of us.
Abu Hamza = One of them.
Gary McKinnon = Browsed a few open and unprotected computers looking for spaaaace aliens.
Abu Hamza = Demented religious nut job jihadi who's accused of being a terrorist recruiter and taking 16 people hostage.
Need I continue ?
Re: Timing...
Possibly, but last time I looked, Gary MacKinnon hadn't been banged up for inciting racial hatred and solicitation to murder. In fact, he hasn't been convicted of any crime here. Or even charged.
Maybe if 'making American military security look incompetent' was on the statute book, it might have been a different matter.
This topic is closed for new posts.
