back to article 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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Poor Gary

    Poor, poor Gary. He's just misunderstood and suffering from arse wipe syndrome. I'm sure the U.S. will take real good care of Mr. Gary.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Indeed

      You have to wonder why given that there appears to be significant evidence against him, he admitted at least some guilt, and the US have accepted his Aspergers diagnosis, he didn't just go and get the time done.

      1. Anonymous Coward 101

        @Titus

        You miss the point. The Gary McKinnon case is about hysterical hatred for Americans, solely for being American. It is not about the law, facts, or elementary common sense. Who cares about those details?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Advice to KcKinnon

    Buy a cat

  3. MMcA
    WTF?

    This is a litmus test for the Govt...

    They promised not to extradite. If they do, and God forbid the poor tortured guy tops himself in a US gulag, the reverberations will be immense. It could swing any election.

    1. Anonymous Coward 101
      Facepalm

      The government did not promise not to extradite. It was not in their powers to do so, nor that of any Labour government.

  4. alain williams Silver badge

    But the USA never ratified it ...

    so how can it be anything other than one sided, ie biased. ''Baffled'' is putting it mildly!

    1. Rolf Howarth

      Actually they did ratify it, about five years ago, it just took them a year or two longer than the UK.

      1. JimmyPage Silver badge
        Stop

        But ....

        The US could have ratified it at a sell-out concert with Elvis and Hendrix providing the mood music ... the US supreme court still has the power to ensure it does not breach the US constitution. And therefore, the standard of proof in the US will never be as vague or low as in the UK.

        If the UK requested the extradition of someone, and the US supreme court believes the evidence is not good enough ... tough luck.

        1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

          Since most of the comments seem to hinge on McKinnon's case and the review actually hinges on requirements for evidence here's the thing: McKinnon has actually admitted the offence and still does not deny that he comitted the offence, therefore there was no actual requirement for evidence. As such even if the judicial review had decided that the requirements for evidence were one sided it would not have made a blind bit of difference in McKinnon's case.

    2. Anonymous Coward 101
      Facepalm

      Yes, they did ratify it:

      http://london.usembassy.gov/ukpapress48.html

    3. laird cummings

      When one considers that the US is refusing NO requests from the UK, whilst the UK has refused a half dozen or more, I'd say that it IS unbalanced - in favor of the *UK.*

      Oh, wait - Facts aren't allowed when discussing a cause célèbre.

      1. Richard 81

        @laird

        Out of interest, how many requests have been made by the UK?

        1. The BigYin

          @laird

          To add to Richard 81's question, have you considered that the UK simply makes sure it has evidence of an actual crime before extraditing?

          I am sure out military security is equally as bad, but the kind of holes that McKinnon found have been there since the 80s! If 25+ years is not long enough to secure your system, then you deserved to be hacked!

          Read "The Cuckoo's Egg" by Clifford Stoll and see just how little has changed.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @laird

            "I am sure out military security is equally as bad, but the kind of holes that McKinnon found have been there since the 80s! If 25+ years is not long enough to secure your system, then you deserved to be hacked!"

            The military fetishists are only insistent on making an example of McKinnon because there's nothing they can do to undo their own ineptitude. It's the same thing with Bradley Manning: you have a low-ranking operative achieving superspy levels of intelligence disclosure, and all the "semper fi" shouting morons can do to soothe their hurt pride is to lash out at the person who merely took advantage of the incompetence of their superiors (arguably on moral grounds), all while the next transgressor is presumably well on their way to pulling off something similar.

        2. laird cummings
          Boffin

          @Richard81, the BigYin, et al

          Between 2004 and thus far in 2011, there have been 130 request by the US, and 54 requests by the UK. Of those requests, 7 have been denied by the UK, and 0 by the US.

          That works out to slightly better than 1 denial per 19 requests, or a percentage of slightly over than 5%. Whereas, the US is refusing exactly 0% of the UK requests.

          As to the suggestion that the evidentiary standards presented by the UK are substantially superior to that presented by the US, and having actually *paid attention* to the various farces in the UK court systems, I can only laugh uproariously at the sheer absurdity of such an assertion. Not, mind you that I'm suggestion the US prosecutors are in any way perfectr, but to suggest that somehow the Crown Prosecution service is hitting 100%? Entirely laughable!

          By the way, if anyone actually cares about *facts* - I know; not permited when blatant bigotry is the prime motivator - this treaty was intended, among other things, to address an actual, legally-definable bias against the US in extradition standards as set in the 1870 accord.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    "extradition treaty ruled 'not biased'"

    ... Outrageous.

    1. kissingthecarpet
      Unhappy

      Not even ruled upon

      Just "policy advice" by a retired "judge". Just an opinion, then, that carries no legal weight at all(but yes, fucking outrageous to a ridiculous degree). I'll be interested to hear their "explanation" of this position.

      How many El Reg commenters believed the Tories' pre-election bedtime stories about how anti-authoritarian they were, & how they were going to repeal this or that dodgy law? I had the impression it was quite a few. They must have short memories or be too young to remember <sarcasm>the glorious outpouring of liberty & freedom for all that was the hallmark of the Thatcher/Major years </sarcasm> The whole point of the Tories is that they don't change, on the inside anyway.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Splitting hairs?

    Pointing to the requirement for "probably cause" to extradite in one direction versus "reasonable suspicion" as being "bias" is a bit of a stretch - particularly when in reality, the US has refused NONE of the UK's extradition requests, while the UK has refused seven US ones ... not to mention dragging its heels for almost a decade in this particular case, where it seems pretty clear the evidence (including an admission of guilt!) would easily exceed both thresholds anyway.

    After the Knox fiasco, where an Italian court jailed her on the basis of evidence that wouldn't be sufficient to back up a parking ticket let alone a murder conviction, I'd worry more about that direction than any US court; to call Pelugia's a kangaroo court would be an insult to marsupials.

    1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      Surely the difference "probable cause" versus "reasonable suspicion" is down to the difference required for an arrest warrant in the two countries anyway. In the US only probable cause is required to justify an arrest while reasonable suspicion is required in the UK.

      If a UK citizen were to be arrested in the US on a US arrest warrant they would not get very far by arguing that the warrant was invalid because the police when applying for that warrant did not present evidence that they had reasonable suspicion to justify that arrest.

      The argument that McKinnon committed his offence in the UK is just bullshit. He admits that he knew the computers he was attacking were in the US therefore he knowingly committed an offence on US soil.

  7. Richard Taylor 2
    Thumb Down

    Obviously

    McKinnon apart, we the public asre being mislead - the Judiciary have said so. Would they care to explain? Words of many syllables are acceptable.

  8. David Simpson 1
    Devil

    Get him in the post.

    The part Janice seems to miss is the part where her son hacked US military networks, a fact he has admitted to, what did he think would happen ? Just because I leave my back door open does not make it legal for someone to enter my house uninvited.

    The crimes where committed on US soil since that is where the computer systems reside, he committed his hack from the UK but it's about time we all stopped shielding someone who admits the crime.

    1. Rolf Howarth

      The point isn't whether he committed an offence or not, but by whose standards he ought to be judged. If somebody and hacks into a computer in the UK, stupid as it is, they might expect a suspended sentence (certainly at the time the offence was committed), not to be locked up for 25 years to life as a potential terrorist!

      Think through the implications. Let's say you forward a funny pornographic chain email to your friend who happens to be working on an oil rig in the Gulf, should you be extradited to Saudi Arabia? You post on a blog about Tibet and get extradited to China?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      But in the extradition request...

      ... they are not charging him for walking through an open door. They are charging him for the cost of fitting new locks, a brand new 6 inch thick steel door and 24/7 security guards.

      The whole extradition request is a farce as the reparations figures claimed on it, are exactly the figures needed to secure an extradition from the UK, not a penny more, not a penny less.

      That's not to say that McKinon isn't guilty of something. Just not the lie the US government is propgating to get an extradition to cover their own arses for leaving their doors wide open.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The actual hack was perpetrated from the UK

      Because the criminal was in the UK when he committed the crime. That means that the crime was committed in the UK.

      MacKinnon's computer didn't even talk directly TO the military systems- it was through a complex series of routing agents and other networky gubbins. So from the UK, he commanded his computer to tell another computer to tell a router to [internet stuff happens] to tell a router to tell a router to send a packet to a computer that filtered the packet and then passed it onto it's destination address. So the crime was entirely contained within the UK, though the effects of it were felt in the USA.

      I'm sure you could, if you were really wanting to cause trouble (or were a Lawyer wanting to stretch this out a few more months), argue that the lack of any passwords on the Admin accounts he used meant that he was authorised to use it as there was no access control, i.e. it was impossible to NOT be authorised. You find your way to the computer, you use a 20-year-old standard password (presumably 'root' or 'administrator') and no password and you're in. It's as secure as having it located around a few sharp bends in the road.

      See, this is why there needs to be an 'Internet' principle laid down. My money would be on "it's only illegal if it's illegal where you are when you do it". Otherwise you have to accept Chinese laws even though you're in the UK. Looking at porn featuring an 18 year old- would that be legal because it was filmed and hosted in the UK, or illegal because the age of consent for such things is 21 in your state? Or both (a principle which I shall now term 'schroe-dong-er's pussy')?

      Or how about a murder across state lines? Discharging a firearm isn't necessarily illegal, and being shot isn't necessarily illegal. So with your 'it's only a crime if it's illegal where it has an effect' would let a murderer go- but 'shooting with intent to kill' would be a crime if you go with the 'where he's standing', so the criminal wouldn't get off with it.

      Basically, the idea that 'the hacked servers were in the USA so the crime was committed in the USA' opens a really, really big can of worms. "Stick by the laws of wherever you are" is a much, MUCH less can-of-worm-y law.

      And leaving your back door open makes it a lot less illegal for someone to enter your home illegally- it removes the 'breaking' from 'breaking and entering'. Would you really prosecute someone as badly if they'd just wandered in through an unlocked door rather than smashing in a window to gain access?

      1. laird cummings

        Illegal entry is illegal entry. Period. Whether or not the door was unlocked, or poorly locked, is entirely beside the point.

        When you trespass, you aren't charged with where you stood *before* you committed your crime, you're charged with where you were actually trespassing. And that trespass happened in the physical United States - He doesn't get a pass simply because computers give him long legs.

        1. Steen Hive
          FAIL

          "Illegal entry is illegal entry. Period"

          The jackety-fuck it is. If he had visited a website that had no password set no-one would have given a toss. What's the legal difference between port 80 and port 22?

          You put a computer on the Internet unprotected, public access is implied.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Great. But guessing a username and password (even if it was reported to be blank) is effectively looking at a bunch of doors, noticing a lock, and trying a key to see if it works then stepping through said door and having a bloody good rummage around...

            If an foreigner popped over on a plane and did this at your house, your want the bugger extradited and the full extent of the law slapped on him. This is what is happening in this case.

            He knew what he was doing was wrong and that can not be argued. Simples.

            The argument is should he be extradited - yes, in theroy as he commited a crime against the states and we have an extradition treaty. Should it be considered terroism - probably not.

            All in all, he should of been locked up a long time ago and he is just making a continued mockery of our justice system. To all that argue, dont do the crime if you cant do the time.

          2. laird cummings

            @Steen Hive; et al

            @Steen; you are clearly and legally wrong. You can whinge all you like, it does not change the legal facts. Get over it.

            @ the rest; crime is extraditable. Get over it. But this wasn't just a simple, run-of-the-mill crime, it was knowing (and confessed) intrustion into military systems - That raises the stakes.

        2. This post has been deleted by its author

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          If you want to use the word trespass perhaps I'll point out he was physically never present in the US. This is law, not armchair analogies

      2. Anonymous John

        But the victim is in the US.

        Suppose you were the victim of an Internet scam. Would you prefer the scammer to be extradited from Lagos and tried in the UK, or to face a Nigerian court?

        1. Steve the Cynic

          Nigerian vs UK courts

          Nigeria is actually keen to see 419ers stop dragging their country's name through the mud. I clearly remember the full-page ads in the newspapers placed by the Nigerian authorities making it clear that these scams were, indeed, scams, and that it wasn't legal even there. Indeed, we call these scams 419s because section 419 of Nigeria's criminal code makes these scams illegal there.

          The problem is that Nigeria, like many places in the Third World, has a justice system that is ineffective and corrupt even on a good day, so it's relatively rare for these guys to even be caught by the police. Once caught and put in front of a judge, however, they are likely to have fun extracting their nuts from the wringer.

          So, yes, I'd quite fancy seeing these guys in a Nigerian court, if you can persuade the Nigerian police to do their job...

  9. Chronigan

    Confussion?

    I think that part of the reason that the treaty is viewed as lopsided is that the two legal and political systems, while similar, have important differences that affect when and how an extradition request is made. An article comparing the two, written by someone with experience of both, would be much appreciated..

    1. Anonymous Coward 101
      Happy

      For you, sir...

      http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/06/skeptic-looks-at-mckinnon-case-part_13.html

  10. fixit_f
    Facepalm

    This is getting silly now

    There seems no doubt that McKinnon committed a crime by UK law or by US law. He should of course face some form of punishment. There were of course security issues in the systems that he very easily penetrated - in the same way that there are security issues at my local supermarket that would allow me (if I so desired) to walk out with a bunch of stolen products hidden under my coat. I could (if I chose) take a bomb unchallenged into my place of work and detonate it because of a similar lack of security. Just because something is possible doesn't make it reasonable, the whole fabric of society as we know it is based around that simple principle.

    I can see the logic of extradition and trial in the place where his crimes were (by virtue of connectivity) committed if he came from a place where it would seem likely that his offence would be swept under the carpet and not properly punished. Gary, however, is based in the UK. We are not a country which has no concept of due process, acceptable and reasonable judgement of the severity of his crime and allocating appropriate punishment. The US should accomodate this fact I think and allow him to be tried in the UK and face appropriate punishment here - I don't think his defence argument is that he shouldn't face prison time, just that as a UK citizen he should pay for his crimes in the country that he was born and resides. They would have no hope whatsoever of extraditing a similar hacker from certain other countries, and by the same token as the above just because extraditing him is "possible" because of the treaty we signed that doesn't make it "reasonable".

    Many would add to this that in his individual case he is (if you consider his diagnosis of Aspergers rather too convenient) still an obviously introverted, awkward and nervous man and that the extradition process would cause him huge stress. To be honest I don't think this argument is particularly relevant as I'd consider the point above to be sufficient. We can handle this internally to the satisfaction of the Americans, so it seems reasonable that we should be permitted to do so. To force extradition by definition implies that they consider our justice system substandard or too lenient, and to implicity make that assertion is in diplomatic terms rather an insult that no serious nation should be levelling against another.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The only problem with this...

      ... is the UK judicial system originally looked at this case, and decided that there was no case to answer. McKinon was found to have commited no crime punishable by UK law. It was only after 9/11 when new law was applied retrospectively, the US re-raised the matter of extradition, i.e. they wanted him extradited under terrorist legislation for a crime that the UK authorities had already been determined did not deserve punishment.

      New law should not be applied retrospectively, otherwise, when the law is changed, eg if the speed limit was lowered from 70 to 60, the government could start to bring to court, all those people travelling at 70 before the limit changed. Or when drugs are reclassified, you could pull in all those people either taking drugs legally at the previous time.

      This is the kind of thing you expect from Dubai, not the western world.

    2. Anonymous Coward 101

      "To force extradition by definition implies that they consider our justice system substandard or too lenient, and to implicity make that assertion is in diplomatic terms rather an insult that no serious nation should be levelling against another."

      It implies no such thing, whether by definition or otherwise. Extradition did not begin with Gary McKinnon, and won't end there. It has been a lawful way for nations to ask other nations for suspected criminals on their territory to be returned to face trial. Where extradition treaties do not exist or are otherwise difficult to enforce, injustice is seen to prevail - e.g. Costa Del Crime.

      With the exception of the extradition stuff, your post is on the money.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Very reasonable... Except.

      UK justice is, by American standards, notoriously lilly-livered. Mass-murderers are allowed to walk free and be sent home to heroic wlecomes without consequences; terms of "imprisonment for life" seem to mean about fourteen years or so, and the like.

      Now, I'll grant you, the Lockerbie bomber was held under Scottish law, but you can see where we might have some serious concerns about 'satisfactory perfomance' under the law.

      Now, if you could be trusted to apply AND stick to the same sentencing guidelines we'd use for the crime in question, then sure, you all could be allowed. But, simply put, we *don't* trust your abilities to live up to that standard. After all, look how long its taken you to extradite a confessed criminal.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        ... And American justice is about as competent as its computer security.

        As for mass murderers getting off lightly, does the name William. Calley ring a bell ?

        People in glass houses and all that ...

      2. honkhonk34
        Coffee/keyboard

        Comparing Gary McKinnon to Magrahi is ridiculous. One is a mentally damaged shut in who admits to hacking a system that should have been inaccessible, the other is a man who was charged with the destruction of an aeroplane and the death of 270 people.

        And even at that, and as a Scottish person myself - there's no way Magrahi was the mastermind behind the whole thing. An attack of that size would require intensive planning and logistics and expertise which it's pretty widely accepted Mahrai does not and did not possess. The real criminals are long gone - what's the point in holding a man dying of cancer? The Scottish justice system is one based around compassion as well as judgement, and I'll tell you this - I'm proud of it, but I don't see anything to be proud about in the vindictive extradition of a mentally confused man.

        1. Evan Essence
          Thumb Up

          +1 from this Englishman.

          The American "justice" system is full of people screaming for vengeance, and compassion is a foreign word. They're lunatics: what is the point, really, of sentencing someone to 200 years or something? Do they keep the bodies in prison when the prisoners die, and put up with the stink, or are they lily-livered and dispose of them?

          1. peyton?
            Unhappy

            The 'greater than life' sentences

            Have to do with

            a) Laws regarding early release - i.e., being released before your roriginal sentence comes to term for good behavior etc

            b) Maximum sentences

            So a judge cannot just sentence someone to 'life in prison without parole' because he feels like it, but he can sentence you to, say, 20 years per crime multiplied by X crimes committed to make sure you are no longer bothering society. In other words, by the time you are eligible for parole, you will be too old (or too dead) to worry about. It can ensure psychopaths don't get an early release due to technicalities of the law, introduced, well mainly probably because of overcrowded prisons, but also to provide for methods of leniency.

            Personally, I'd argue it's our penal system, not judicial, that's in greater need of updating. Punishment with no thought to reformation is really not working out.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    And she's right....

    Its a totally one sided agreement. Brought about by that grinning twat blair and labours policy of pandering to the USA.

    I thought the tories would have had a bit more spine. More fool me.

    I truely despair for this country in 25 years time...

    1. kissingthecarpet
      Mushroom

      At least

      Blair wasn't around for Vietnam - he'd have been there like a shot(see icon). That was one of the shocking things about "New" Labour - their slavish adoration of the US, the last place on earth you'd expect any social democrat to look to for inspiration. It was always the Tories who loved the US - remember Thatcher & Reagan, and of course today we have the example of "Atlantic Bridge" a dubious organisation to say the least.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Grenada

        Although Thatcher was always supportive of the US in its foreign activities, I can't recall (my memory at fault, not lack of incidents perhaps) cases where the interests of the two clashed except the invasion of Grenada.

        Now that was an incident where the US annoyed the Iron Lady

        1. JimmyPage Silver badge
          Alert

          To be fair

          she got their backs up by insisting on going into the Falklands, despite Reagan personally asking her not to. And then she proved the US "intelligence" embarressingly wrong when we won in less than 3 months.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Thatcher also went ballistic when the US attempted to block Britain from supplying gas turbines for a gas pipeline from the Soviet Union.

          She was also willing to tell the US what to d;, it was Thatcher, not Bush who first proposed confronting the invasion of Kuwait, famously saying 'George, don't get wobbly.'

      2. JimmyPage Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        One of the reasons why I admire Harold Wilson ...

        while it may have been more out of fear of his own party than any moral standard, he was very definite in keeping the UK *out* of Vietnam, despite intense US pressure for us to go in with them.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          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?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Totally one sided.

      In the UK's favor, based on the numbers.

      Time for the winging little git to face the music for his self-centered stupidity.

    3. peyton?
      Happy

      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).

  12. byrresheim
    Thumb Down

    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 (!).

  13. I herd cats.

    Pfft

    Jog on.

  14. Anonymous John

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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.

  15. Anonymous Coward 101

    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...

  16. Wang N Staines

    Realistically?

    In theory the treaty isn't "not biased".

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

    1. Hooch181
      FAIL

      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!

  18. Gio Ciampa

    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...

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

    1. Evan Essence

      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?

      1. Tom 13

        Answer:

        All of them, sequentially.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @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.

  20. James 51
    Big Brother

    Just another glorious day in airstrip one.

  21. James 51

    @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.

  22. Asgard
    Big Brother

    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.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Happy

      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.

    2. Tom 13

      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.

  23. JaitcH
    FAIL

    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'?

    1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      "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.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Stop

      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?

  24. Winkypop Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    American justice eh?

    I'd never like to experience it.

    1. Arthur Dent
      Unhappy

      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.

  25. Hairy Airey

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward 101

      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

    2. Tom 13

      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.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward 101

      Could you elaborate?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Sure

        "the treaty, which does not require UK authorities to make a preliminary case for extradition from the US"

        /NOT

  27. Grease Monkey Silver badge

    "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.

  28. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Stop

    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.

  29. This post has been deleted by its author

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Gee

    Sure is paid posters in here...

  31. Hairy Airey

    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.

Other stories you might like