Sign in / up

back to article Abu Hamza ruling clarifies McKinnon case

The Abu Hamza ruling may affect the Gary McKinnon case by removing one of the arguments against trying the self-admitted hacker in the UK, according to McKinnon's mum. Last week the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled to halt the extradition of Abu Hamza and Babar Ahmad and other Islamic militants to the US on human …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mum knows best.

    "The Abu Hamza ruling may affect the Gary McKinnon case by removing one of the arguments against trying the self-admitted hacker in the UK, according to McKinnon's mum."

    And since when has his mother been an acknowleged expert on international law?

    0 15
    1. Rob
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Probably since...

      ... she's been fighting this battle which has lasted a few years now. When something like this consumes your life you'll have nothing better to do than to read up on the rules of the game that your playing.

      If it was my son, I could probably imagine I'd be going for my bar exam right now (the law type, not the alcohol type, done that one already).

      13 0
    2. Circadian
      Reply Icon
      Grenade

      @anonymous coward

      "And since when has his mother been an acknowleged expert on international law?"

      Compared to the last government's knowledge (Phorm, police retention of DNA, photographers' rights etc), I should imagine she scores quite highly...

      4 0
    3. peter 45
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Up

      probably better

      Probably better at it than the 'expert' Government Lawyers.

      2 0
    4. Intractable Potsherd
      Reply Icon
      Troll

      @AC

      When did you become expert in deciding who is an expert in something you know fuck all about? She is actually extremely knowledgable about this area of law, even though she probably never intended, or wanted, to be.

      Crawl away now - you are not wnated here.

      2 0
  2. JaitcH
    Alert

    Labour government cowards: is new one better?

    The agreement under which British citizens can be extradited to the USA not only is ONE-SIDED, on favour of the Americans, naturally, but their part of the agreement has NEVER BEEN RATIFIED so only UK citizens are deported, under unequal TERMS whilst US citizens are essentially immune to deportation except for the most extreme crimes.

    This new, wimpy, Britain, made so by Blair, et al should tell the new government ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Either the UK prosecutors should get off the pot and charge the man, if he didn't breach a British law and tell the Americans that until the agreement is ratified with provisions that nothing will be done in any matter.

    Besides, if a government is so inept that it can't manage or secure it's computer systems the blame ;lies with them if someone happens inside their data.

    6 4
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Stop it now!

      Where does this misonformation come from. The US ratified their side of things some time ago but this crap is still regularly posted.

      Do some research before you start tying in caps. Come to think of it, typing in caps is probably a pretty got indication of somebody who just knows things and doesn't have to do research.

      4 2
      1. JaitcH
        Reply Icon
        Alert

        Inequality remains: the US Congress still too busy

        If if USA had ratified their side of the Treaty - only done by Senate 29 days ago, seemingly the Congress (two houses like UK) has been too busy with some financial misdeeds on Wall Street and spent a year on fixing up healthcare - the fact remains the inequality of the provisions, weighted against UK citizens remain, and were symptomatic of the 'puppy dog' syndrome exhibited by Blair and highlighted by his adopting lies to justify the Iraq invasion that resulted in the many deaths of British youth.

        My use of capitalization is for emphasis and not some other reason. Have a careful read of < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition >, < http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm > for particulars of the inequalities.

        2 2
      2. kain preacher
        Reply Icon

        @AC 15:27 GMT

        "Where does this misonformation come from. The US ratified their side of things some time ago but this crap is still regularly posted."

        Its simple. Never let facts get in the way of good rant . Thats why we have stupid laws . You get two million reputable scientist to say weed is safe what do the politician do ?? they want to up the time for weed . Oh and the CEOP button, extreme porn law . Another good quote to go with this post is "if the facts get in your way, get rid of the facts "

        0 0
    2. Connor
      Reply Icon
      Stop

      Not quite true.

      It has been ratified by the US, back in September 2006, admittedly nearly three years after it was in Britain, but it has been ratified for nearly four years now. The delay in ratification wasn't the reason it was one sided, it still is one sided and it means Britain can extradite to the US without the US having to prove anything, they simply name their man, we rubber stamp it. The UK has to prove reasonable cause however, when they want a US citizen.

      Despite this I cannot understand why Britain cannot deport wanted murderers and terrorists to its ally, most of whom are not even British citizens. It makes Britain a laughing stock, especially as we cannot even deport these callous killers to their home nation, where they are either wanted or have been tried in absentia. Now even the US its out of bounds. What sort of message does it send when convicted terrorists can arrive here illegally, and then cannot be removed under any circumstance?

      Worst of all, it is almost guaranteed that the only person who will be allowed to be extradited, is Gary McKinnon. No doubt by the time he is extradited, Abu Hamza will be walking free.

      6 2
      1. Paul 4
        Reply Icon

        Message

        "What sort of message does it send when convicted terrorists can arrive here illegally"

        That we are a civilised nation that dose not send people overseas to be tourtured or killed, or to face a mock trial and unfair treatment?

        3 0
        1. Connor
          Reply Icon

          So....

          ...basically we're a nation that tells other nations that our way is better and their laws don't matter, and that as they don't actually have the same morals and ethics as us and are therefore inferior, we'll decide what justice is and what is best for them?

          That isn't civilised, that's arrogant.

          0 1
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    RE: Mum Knows best

    You can read right?

    "........removing one of the arguments against trying the self-admitted hacker in the UK......"

    Which would seem to correspond to:

    "Alan Johnson previously said that if they allowed Gary to remain here that this could help Abu Hamza etc to fight extradition."

    Seeing as Abu Hamza's extradition has been blocked it seems the statement by Mr. Johnson is no longer valid. It could be considered "removed" one could say.

    So rather than an expert on international law it seems Mrs. HackersMum can be considered an expert in basic level English reading comprehension.

    7 0
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    A monstrous injustice . .

    if Human Rights legislation can protect Abu Hamza and not Gary McKinnon (and I'm not advocating dumping HR legislation by any means).

    This treaty stands as testament to Blair's position up Bush's fundament and although I would never describe myself as nationalistic it really is time that we told the US that enough is enough.

    It does seem strange to me that both the US and the UK seem to have had virtually simultaneous legislative lobotomies and both appear to have woken up at about the same time (as far as we can tell at the moment).

    1 1
  5. kevin elliott

    Polanski...

    If the Swiss can decline Polanski's deportation for what most of us would consider a much more serious crime, then surely the new govt. can decline this request.

    3 1
    1. Graham Marsden
      Reply Icon

      Re: Polanski

      Polanski's "much more serious crime" was not at issue, what was the issue was that a deal was struck that would have involved him not being jailed after the girl's parents agreed that he should not be imprisoned.

      What he then did was to leave the USA after it was suggested that the Judge was going to jail him anyway, which is an entirely different matter.

      The girl involved has subsequently said that she has forgiven him and doesn't want him to be jailed either.

      It seems that, unlike the UK, at least the Swiss aren't willing to turn someone over to the USA without better grounds for extradition that "we want him, hand him over".

      4 1
  6. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    UFO Hacker?

    Given that he left messages on the systems he hacked saying that his activities would continue until US adjusted its foreign policy, you should stop calling him this. His motivations were political and dress it up however you like, that's cyber-terrorism.

    They were talking about a 36 month sentence at plea bargain IIRC, that seems about right...and he could have served that in a UK gaol.

    I can't believe real sysadmins here will be all that sympathetic - crackers/hackers, even crappy ones using open doors, should go to prison.

    2 10
    1. Naughtyhorse
      Reply Icon

      hmmmm...

      okay so you work for uncle sam,

      we get it

      you're in IT,

      we get it

      you know shit about security

      we ge it

      you want to scapegoat a man with a debilitating mental condition, who it is widley understood was only in your wide open system looking for info about UFO.

      get the fuck out of here

      dickwad

      1 3
      1. Adam Salisbury
        Reply Icon

        Ergo...

        If I leave my front door unlocked you get to rob me and not receive punishment? Doesn't matter that the treaty's one sided, he confessed to a crime and is not beyond punishment, personally I'm waiting for the medical evidence that describes the severity of his condition. I know a few asperger's sufferers and they all know the difference between right and wrong, what do you think a long and protracted extradition battle is doing for his metnal wellbeing?

        0 1
  7. TkH11

    wtf ??

    The idea that one person's extradition will be permitted on the basis that someone else's extradition has gone ahead is complete nonsense. Alan Johnson, as the then Home Secretary really should know better (but then he is an ex-postie so you can't expect him to have the mental facilties to get his head around the issues).

    The point about our justice system is that each case is considered on it's own merits without resort to influence by other cases. This is why in both civil and criminal court cases, information pertaining to other cases, previous cases regarding the defendants is not permitted to be disclosed before or during the main court case before judgement/conviction is made.

    You can't authorise an extradition because someone else was or wasn't refused it!

    You have to look at the details of the case concerned and judge that.

    If however, if the law is not clear, then it might be the case that the particular issue has been clarified by a previous case and a precedent set.

    That precedent can then be used to determine the outcome of the later separate case.

    For Mr. Johnson not to understand this basic concept in his position of home secretary shows how unfit for office he was.

    I shudder to think now what he would have been like as Prime Minister. Perhaps they should set a minimum IQ of 120 for the post! Not unreasonable, I think. Do you really want someone with an average IQ running a country of 60 million people?

    1 0
  8. 42
    FAIL

    @AC

    I am a real system admin, and sympathise with that position so believe it. McKinnon should not be extradited to a country with such a awful prison system.

    3 1
  9. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    I have an idea!

    Maybe we could give him to the Yanks and in return they could do us a favour?

    What about something like - disolve Microsoft - or at least ban them from selling software in the UK!

    0 0
  10. ShaggyDoggy

    Torture and Death

    I thought we didn't extradite to countries that use torture and the death penalty ?

    Oh wait ...

    3 0
  11. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    When in doubt, cry... ASPERGERGERS SYNDROME!

    It has always worked for asses who want to hide something. I think that is what the so called "aspergers" was invented for.

    Paris. because they are clueless!!

    0 3
    1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)
      Reply Icon

      Re: When in doubt, cry... ASPERGERGERS SYNDROME!

      Look, everyone, we have an expert in neurological disorders in our midst. It's an honour, no?

      5 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        I don't know I think he has a point...

        About it becoming an excuse. When I was diagnosed with aspergers I had never even heard of it, yet now everyone seems to have it and it is constantly in the news, films, etc. It does seem to be up there with stress, depression, bi-polar disorder, where celebrities or their legal teams trot out these excuses for poor behaviour. Surely if this many people have them it is normal, rather than a exceptional?

        I am not saying that McKinnon doesn't have it, and I do have sympathy for him and can certainly understand the driving need to find what he was looking for once he started, at almost any cost, but aspergers is not a disorder or disability, it's a different way of thinking. It isn't an excuse, he still knew he was doing wrong, and it won't affect his ability to serve his sentence, on the contrary, I am sure he'll love the routine!

        0 0
  12. kain preacher

    @Graham Marsden

    It seems that, unlike the UK, at least the Swiss aren't willing to turn someone over to the USA without better grounds for extradition that "we want him, hand him over".

    He plead guilt and fled before sentencing. What more proof do you want .

    0 0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like