I'm gutted. Honestly I really am so gutted that a criminal is going to have to face justice. What a terrible world we live in
Gary McKinnon has lost a judicial review against his extradition to the United States on hacking charges. Lawyers for the Briton hoped his recent diagnosis with Asperger's Syndrome would be enough to persuade judges to overturn previous rulings and allow McKinnon to be tried in the UK. But Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Mr …
I heard his mum talking on the Today show this morning - it's on the Today website at 07:15. She argued that his recently diagnosed Asperger syndrome prevented him from understanding "many social rules" and "they don't understand the consequences of their actions" and that he was only thinking of the "supressed information of the alien technology". My understanding is that Asperger Syndrome makes you fail to understand social mores, lack empathy, it makes you socially inept, possibly overly focused on single issues, and with a somewhat personalised form of logic - but it doesn't prevent you understanding right from wrong.
They've played it well, but I think it may be all over.
In the BBC report the ruling is reported as stating that extradition is:-
"a lawful and proportionate response to his offending. "
Surely they mean his *alleged* offending? While McKinnon has admitted hacking he *hasn't* been convicted of any crime and so cannot be considered to be guilty of committing an offence.
Another case of "Guilty until proven innocent" in Police State Britain?
Bit like another photographer nicked under "anti-terror" laws:-
He'll go to America.
They'll put him in an open prison, with access to his laywers, family and friends. They'll feed him well, they'll keep him safe, they'll try him fast.
He'll be convicted and probably won't see a custodial sentence. If he does, he'll probably be repatriated in under a week.
We may cuss and complain, but the US probably isn't quite the ogre we make it out to be. In the past five years, we've gone beyond them in how nasty we're willing to be to our own.
Hey, I may be wrong, but thats my gut feeling.
Just to make it clear, this was a legal longshot, more in the hope of generating publicity. From a legal standpoint I'm told it had little chance of success, so please don't start the usual tired tirade about it all being an "establishment cover-up" or saying that the judges are just "pawns of the government", etc, etc. You can moan all you like about the one-sidedness of the extradition treaty, but it is still law, and McKinnon has admitted to a crime covered by that agreement, so until that law is changed he's just buying time (at the taxpayers' expense) until he gets shipped off to the Septics. To change that law would require an act of parliament, and that is not likely to complete before McKinnon is in the clutches of the US courts.
Personally, I think that his lawyers are just enjoying the attention, the publicity and no doubt the large paycheques they are getting off this. He should have just gone quietly, done a deal with the Yanks and probably done minimum time in one of their more comfortable prisons, and he'd probably already be back out. Unfortunately, he got collared by the anti-establishment crowd, and they filled his head with stupid ideas about being sent off to Gitmo for life, and ever since the same parasites have just been using him as media bait.
1) AIUI he committed no crime in the UK
2) He didn't "hack" as such, just walked through the open doors on USA computers
3) The USA ratified the treaty 2006, but it is still biased in favour of the USA
Point 3 is enough for me to reject his extradition. Point 1 as well. Point 2 is enough for a slap on the wrist and a "You're old enough to know better" chidding. As for the "damage"....if the USA was negligent enough to leave their systems wide open - then that is their lookout.
The USA should be told to sod off and our MPs brought to book for siging a treaty that skates very close to treason IMHO.
Yes. I think you may be deliberately missing the point. I believe the question is more _where_ he should face justice, the degree to which the charges he faces have been trumped up and what our government's roll-over-good-doggie attitude to the extradition question says about our society.
Still. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?
(Sorry. Couldn't resist the hungry look on his little troll face...)
Facing justice is one thing, but he should be facing it in the country where he commited the crime, in this instance the UK. Suppose he'd posted something on a forum about Islam and Sudan decided they wanted to extradite him for breaking their law, people wouldn't stand for it. But when it's the US doing the demanding we roll over.
He commited crimes in breach of the Computer Misuse Act and should be tried on that basis. If he really must be tried in the US then it should be under UK law (as the Lockerbie trial was done in The Hague under Scots Law.
Our judicial system is as corrupt as our government.
I know it's a dream and wont happen but I hope the Tories when they get in next year sack every single one of these complete wastes of space in public sector, quangos, the police and the judiciary that Labour has managed to get in place.
It's sickening that Labour has corrupted this country to it's very core, yes I know the Tories are no different but oh well, one can always dream.
If only there was a party with a chance of getting in power that was actually not corrupt.
If McKinnon goes to the US, he's seriously f**ked. He'll be banged up for the rest of his natural. The US have spent so much time and effort trying to extradite this sad little bastard that anything other that a conviction and maximum sentence is out of the question.
If he hangs around, he's going to jail for the rest of his life.
If he does a runner and gets caught, he goes to jail for the rest of his life.
Nothing to lose.
Time to run.
Just remember people, most of you voted for this shower of shite government 3 times. Not just once, not twice, but THREE F*****G times.
So when u whinge and gripe about their policies, just remember that.
I fucked off out the UK after Blair got voted in a second time.
As for Gary, I'm dissapointed and feel for him and his family. However it was bound to happen. Toothless, pointless, useless Government leads to this sort of shite.
MASSIVE FAIL on part of people representation.
Look, no one is denying that McKinnon was a bad boy and broke the law. What people are saying is that the poor bastard is going to be skinned alive by a foreign nation in a manner disproportionate to his actual crime.
Worse still we all know this, our Govt knows this and we're handing him over on the grounds that the US said so. For us to try a US citizen we have to have proof, strong proof, before they hand that citizen over. The crime also will have had to be commited on UK soil. For them to "request" us to hand the ass of one of our citizens over the US seemingly needs nothing more than "because we said so".
This guy commited 2 crimes, both on UK soil (one was the hacking, the 2nd was to make the US look like a fool, and in yank eyes there is pretty much no greater crime), so he should be tried in a UK court. Not some bigotted, biased, political agenda ridden US Kangaroo Court.
Mckinnon did wrong, yes, I agree, but the guy is being sacrificed to NuLabour's "political expediency" and the so called special relationship (read UK bent over, US standing behind) between UK and US. Don't be so damn naive to think that UK Govt won't sell the entire population to Satan if it thought it would make for a nice life for them.
Yes this subject makes me angry....
... had actually found real evidence of UFO's, ET and the rest. It would be an entirely different story and humankind would be different.. But no he didnt get real evidence so here we are... Just do the time, he got caught and we are no better off for his effort..
CIA will probably give him a job when he gets over there any how.. Keeping your enemies closer and all that jazz.....
The damages claim is inflated to obtain extradition, his job is to protect Brits from extradition where the conditions are not met. The conditions have not been met. He has to approve extradition and he can simply put politics aside and refuse.
Or are we going to start accepting that the US can extradite Brits based on lies?
Because that is the hill we're starting down here. A treaty intended to handle extradition of serious crimes is being used for a crime so petty that it's not worth prosecuting in the UK, and was not for a long time worth prosecuting in the US either.
Once extradited, they cannot give him a petty sentence based on the *actual* damage, having started with the lie, they have to follow it through, pretend he's a cyber-terrorist in need of serious punishment.
Thus the need to exaggerate to meet the conditions needed to get an extradition, means the sentence any Brit would face must also be exaggerated in order not to admit the lie.
Really Mr Johnson should read the details, spot the lie, say "I work for Britain not the US and thus can't go along with this lie" and reject the extradition request.
Neu Labour have made this country "America's bitch" and now we have to bend over and take it - thanks Blair, Brown & Co, and all those spineless sacks of shit which infest Parliament who supported this.
I note the US wasn't so reciprocal in this bilateral treaty [sic], but that's no surprise. Only traitors sell their sovereignty down the river.
He hacked a load of Government computers in the states; and now the US want him prosecuted for it there. If a US citizen did the same to UK army computers etc we'd be asking for the same thing and be pissed the US was playing big and mighty with us if they refused.
Asperger's or not, malicious or not, he is guilty and he knew he was doing something wrong. Send him to the states and lets hear the last of this thing already.
I sadly get the impression they tried to blag it to be here and when that failed he suddenly got diagnosed with Aspergers. Funny that don't ya think?
No need for expensive lawyers and lengthy appeals.
To save Kevin a member of the public need only to walk into their local Magistrates Court and lay a complaint against Mr McKinnon for the crimes he has previously admitted.
Its the right of any individual to do this and would mean he would be tried or acquitted here in the UK.
Paris - Because she would make a lovely McKenzie Friend to assist him.
The diagnosis really shouldn't get him out of facing trial for his actions, nor should it change which court the trial is held in. I'm with AC4 on this: he broke the law (and admitted it). Asperger's is a poor excuse for committing the crime in the first place, and no justification at all for trying him in a UK court rather than a US one.
Those who want him tried here instead: would you still be arguing this way if he faced the stiffer sentence on this side of the Atlantic? It's not as if he won't get a fair trial - although his admission of guilt renders that largely academic anyway - it's just about whether or not he gets off with a lighter sentence.
He should be tried in public, and all the evidence should be available for public inspection before, during and after the trial because the US military should be made - in public - to look as obviously stupid as they are.
Maybe then they'd stop bleating about terrible damages which represent a less than a half of a half of a half of a half of one percent of their operational budget and are entirely their own fault for leaving their computers unsecured. Maybe they'd stop complaining about 'massive' system downs which only last 24 hours. Maybe they'd admit that their sysadmins are measurably piss-poor for taking a year before they spotted someone was hacking in.
But I doubt it.
US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days.
They get the increasingly thankless task of navigating the morass of ill-conceived legislation crammed through by twitchy govts (seemingly with half a sleepy eye on tomorrow's red-top SCANDAL!! headline). A saddening report on the Lord Chief Justice's recent speech on this:
And of course in this case the UK govt feels itself hostage to the "special relationship" with all the rich and varied dividends that brings to the UK
(sfx: wind howling, loose door banging, tumbleweed bouncing down street)
>but it doesn't prevent you understanding right from wrong.
But it does stop you from being able to control your impulse to do what you know might be wrong. Obsessive–compulsive disorder is very powerful, you just have to do whatever has got into your head. Failure to do so will bring on extreme panic attacks that you feel will never end until you have done whatever it is.
The American accused of British copyright crimes against the National Portrait Gallery? Why does not Britain insist on his extradition if they're willing to let McKinnon go to the US? Here we have an American accused of British crimes, where all the evidence of such is in Britian, even though he is in the US. Seems a rather neat reversal of the McKinnon case, don't you? If they're willing to let McKinnon go, they should at the same time insist that Coetzee come to Britain for the violations of copyright he's been accused. As they say, fair's fair.
"He hacked a load of Government computers in the states; "
No *YOU* hacked a load of computers in the US and now they want *YOU* extradited.
Now you might assume that they would have to produce evidence to extradite you, and their failure to produce any evidence, let alone evidence to convince a judge, would mean an epic fail.
Sadly no. The UK judge isn't allowed to see or review any evidence. You will be extradited.
Now consider the reverse case. American Bud Armstrong is charged in the UK with hacking computers and extradition is demanded. Now for the extradition to go ahead, the US Judge needs to see the evidence for extradition and that needs to be strong enough to extradite.
Epic fail, because the judge can see and review the evidence (or lack thereof).
So what Alan Johnson is doing here is accepting that the evidence doesn't need to match the extradition conditions. So the treaty is meaningless. It was intended for serious crimes, and is being used for a crime so petty it was a 'no further action' in the UK.
So the treaty is one sided, and this is the first test of it with a clear bullshit damages amount and Alan Johnson shows loyalty to the US above McKinnon (not surprisingly since McKinnon is an ass and Johnson needs to be nice to the US.)
Who cares about McKinnon! The real crime here is the removal of judicial protections in the UK.
Well considering McKinnon has "owned up" that point is moot. What isn't moot is the government taking responsibility for protecting it's citizens from the actions of hostile foreign powers, which include - among other things - clear obligations not to send *anyone* (citizen or otherwise) to countries that are suspected of practicing torture. You do know he committed the "crime" (so heinous that the CPS couldn't be arsed to prosecute) in 2001 and is being extradited under a treaty from 2003, ratified in 2006? If you think sending a citizen to face "justice" in a foreign court under circumstances like that is "responsible", you are a moron.
... is determining where the alleged (ok - he's admitted it, but hey) crime took place.
McKinnon himself was in the UK but the servers he wandered into were in the US... it could be argued that the crime took place in the US since that's where the impact was felt.
However, say you fire a high power rifle in Texas and accidentally kill someone in Mexico (it's hypothetical ok); where would you be tried? The US or Mexico? Under what law? You've not committed a crime in Texas by firing a rifle so would you not face trial at all despite being guilty of manslaughter over the border?
It's called "realpolitik". It stinks but there you go
Copyright infringement of this nature is civil and not criminal - the extradition treaty requires that the offence carry a term of more than 12 months imprisonment _in both countries_ for it to be covered. Not since Dickensian times have we had imprisonment for debt.
But hasn't the whole one sided nature of the 2003 Extradition treaty been changed with the 2006 ratification of the treaty by the US of A?
If this is right, can we drop the whole 'lapdog of the Americans' thing and simply look at the case from the point of view of whether or not he should be extradited.
Why do people bring their retarded politics in to this? Was Thatcher renowned for slapping down US demands? Will it be any different after an election? Of course not.
Don't forget a lot of politicians are also lawyers it's in their interest to make unclear laws that take many lawyers many years to interpret.
If the USA cannot protect its own mission-critical computers by at least making sure none operate with a default password, it is simply absurd for the UK, which presumaby believes itself to be relying on those same computers for its ultimate security (as an ally with a "special relationship"), to be seen[*] to protect (presumably by deterence) the USA's computers in preference to its own citizens. Or as the judges (used to?) say - he who comes to law must come with clean hands.
Until nu labour created a law of criminal trespass, if you found a stranger had come into your home through your unlocked door, no offence existed (damage excepted). Hacking is not necessarily spying, tho some some spying may involve computer hacks. My American friends will recall Jonathon Pollard.
[*] because the hyperreal trumps the real here
"But hasn't the whole one sided nature of the 2003 Extradition treaty been changed with the 2006 ratification of the treaty by the US of A?"
No. The problem of lack of judicial check remains.
"If this is right, can we drop the whole 'lapdog of the Americans' thing and simply look at the case from the point of view of whether or not he should be extradited."
And that's the other big problem, we can consider the evidence of this case (even if extradition Judges can't) and decide for ourselves if this case warrants extradition. However, the extradition treaty lets them extradite on one claimed offence, and prosecute on another!
Yes really, they can make up any charge simply to get the extradition, then discard that and nobody every gets to challenge the made up charge!
It was an Ashcroft - Blunkett treaty, given what we know about Ashcroft now it was incredibly stupid to remove the judicial check and add that clause. UK has a duty to ensure due process for it's citizens (it's a fundamental right), yet Blunkett signed a treaty that takes the judicial process out of the loop.
"Same as any other criminal that flees to a country with an extradition treaty".
FFS try to catch up.
He committed the crime here in the UK, breaching UK laws. He fessed up here. Therefore... bang him up here after a trial HERE. As opposed to shipping him off to a country that has torn up any professed commitment to fair trials and humane treatment of prisoners.
As long as Gitmo exists the US cannot be said to have a fair judicial system.
He's a prat and a criminal, no argument there. But the extradition treaty with the US and the US judicial system are an aberration and we should play no part.
I hate to poke holes in your argument and all, but actually most people in this country didn't even vote for our government once. IIRC, at the last election, they were voted for by circa 20% of the registered voters. The real problems are voter apathy and a lack of viable alternatives, what with Labour and the Tories being photocopies of each other, and the Lib Dems being unelectable. This is why we now have racists as MEPs.
Sure, McKinnon was in the UK when he alledgedly did his little hack trip. Problem is the result was "damages" incurred in the US. Legally, since his actions caused the damages in another country, that is the site of the "crime", even if his actions were judged leagl here. Consider the case of someone that sends a letterbomb from Ireland to the UK, it blows up upon being opened in the UK and the opener dies, then the UK would want to extradite the sender to face a murder charge in the UK even if the Irish didn't want to charge him with explosives offenses. Now, a lot of the posters here somehow think hacking US military/gubbermint systems is not a crime (gee, I bet they wouldn't say the same if someone was hacking their email accounts), but it is, and the servers hacked were mainly in the States, and the damages sustained (the cost of investigating where he'd hacked counts as damages) also happened in the States, therefore it is quite legal to have the US ask for his extradition to face trial in the States. Just because your political beliefs make it hard for you to swallow, doesn't mean you aren't going to have to open wide and suck it down!
"Time for Gary to get a reality check. Happy trails Gary." .... By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 31st July 2009 16:31 GMT
Now that there are multiple choice options/future mutual derivatives on that easily delivered product, AC, whose version and programs would you like to see Path Finding, Way Out in the Lead.
And with the likes of Crazy Horse Cheltenham or Fanny Fort Meade muddying the waters with Pathetic COIN and Apathetic Military Flounder Missions, it may be Best to Look Elsewhere and Eastward for a Better Beta ...... and travel that Journey Deep and Far Enough and you will eventually find yourself Almed and Armed with Eastern Magic in Western Circles.
And is this spooky relevant ....... and only the tip of a TitanIQ Networking ICeberg .... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8179407.stm?
Is it not a known military fact that to know your enemy as a friend will destroy the enemy and create new stronger friendships with Treasure Stores of Civil and Paramilitary Bonds?
Progress.... to a Higher Level of ConFusion with SMARTer Peace Dividends..... http://tinyurl.com/ngbapx .... would appear to be an Alien Concept to the NeoCon Neanderthal Warrior Species .... Sub-Prime Movers and Shakers ...... Jittery Bugs in AI Hostile Environments ....... and ASP Kicking/Kicking ASP Territory for Irregular and Unconventional Anti-Access, Area Denial Asymmetric Strategy Programs.
You may like to consider IT a QuiTE SurReal Novel and NeuReal Great Game for Global Communications HQ from GCHQ for that is the Produce Purchased in Future IT Sales.
Just a thought:
If I am a British citizen I can be extradited to the USA and tried in the USA for crimes committed on a PC in the UK against a PC in the USA without proof. If, hypothetically, between 1998 and 2005 I downloaded and shared tens of thousands of mp3s on P2P networks and if, hypothetically, someone in the USA downloaded those files from me, does that therefore mean that I can be extradited by the RIAA for that? I hear the argument that copyright violation is civil law, not criminal law, but is that the case in the USA where Kevin Cogill got a year's probation for his "felony" of sharing Guns'n'Roses latest album prior to its release? Have we not now set a legal precedent that issues that are a civil matter in the UK but a criminal matter in the US can lead to extradition but this only works in one direction and does not require proof to be shared with the UK court?
Thanks for reminding me of the Computer Misuse Act (ONLY A UK ACT)
Now I might get extradited to North Korea
I got very pissed and had a computer in front of me (don't do this kids)
I ordered some VERY EXPENSIVE server hosting in North Korea for a guy that pissed me off
He owed me nearly £3k and swore at my wife and 2 year old son... so I ordered it for him as a gift.
Needless to say he called the police, and I was arrested. Fair Cop GUV, I did it
Still it's gonna cost the nasty shit £5k to clean up the mess I guess
I'll let you all know what happens in December when it goes to court
Any ship operating in the Gulf would've been in international waters at the time and thus under no specific jurisdiction. The international laws of the high seas would apply in this case, but there are few specific offenses applicable to the high seas, and I think ALL of them require either being physically aboard or physically attacking the ship in question.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019