Re: Correct - This is NOT a US case :: Britain should protect its own
"Extradition should only be for foreigners hiding from their own governments."
IANAL so I don't know the if the legal wording of what I am about to say is correct (in fact I am almost certain it will be wrong).
The principal of extradition is sound. If you, for example, go to a foreign country, kill someone, and come back home before the cops catch you, then I agree that you should be extradited. It's not just "for foreigners hiding from their own governments".
The problem is that, with advances in technology, there are situations where you may be bound by foreign law even though you have never been there. In regulated industries, e.g. finance, this has been the case for a while. AFAIK, people in our finance dept could be prosecuted in the US for certain things, as our parent co is US, and we must abide by certain US financial rules.
The McKinnon case can be seen like this, as he was (if you take the US govt's stance) effectively attacking the US military. However, we have laws in our own country to cover this, and IMHO he should be protected by his government, not thrown into the clutches of a foreign power known throughout the world for their twisted view of "justice" for foreigners.
In the O'Dwyer case, I can see no justification whatsoever for extradition. Nothing he did "touched" the US: He was never in the US, he didn't use US servers. Then only contact with the US was US citizens using his site. This is more akin to them coming to this country, O'Dwyer telling them about a market stall selling counterfeit DVDs, them buying one and taking it back to the US. The jurisdiction in this case is clearly with the UK.
What needs to be clarified, worldwide, is jurisdiction for internet-based cases. Maybe an international court with technically-literate judges to decide purely the matter of jurisdiction. At the moment, it is a mess.