Computer hacker with AS awaits extradition to the US

[baddad]

Only the consequences that are spelt out beforehand. Unless anybody can point out a specific piece of UK LEGISLATION that states that computer hackers can be extradited that was published BEFORE Gary McKinnon was caught, then imposing a penalty of extradition is a dirty underhand tactic of the US government.

 

If Gary McKinnon was being prosecuted in a British court under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 with penalties imposed by the British government in accordance to those stated in the Act, then it would be a completely different story. To prosecute an individual for a crime by issuing a penalty that is not officially published is a very unjust thing to do.

 

Hi canopus - assuming that an officially published piece of legislation did exist what difference would it make? would Gary McKinnon have researched first and then decided not to hack into the US govts computers? If that is the case why didn't he research the laws that do exist and not commit the crime on the basis of those potential repreisals? The point is he didn't give a flying fig what the possible outcome of being caught was because he didn't think he'd get caught! prisons are full of crimninals who have exactly the same attitude, and AS doesn't justify it! The letter written by his mother is unrealistic and manipulative - 'a journey of discovery?' :COME ON... the only reason she's arguing that he should be tried here is that she anticipates the result of a UK trial will be better for her son. If the laws in this country were more stringent than those in the states she would be demanding with equal vigour that he be 'tried in the country where the offence took place'...

I don't blame her for that - I'd probably do the same in her shoes, and i'd possibly even try to play the AS 'trump' that his lawyers have. But that doesn't make it right...

 

as i've said - I am not unsympathetic to this man's plight but only in so far as i would sympathise with anyone who found themselves between a rock and a hard place for doing something so pointless, unnecessary and stupid... to claim that AS should be an excuse for this behaviour, given that it's exactly the kind of behaviour that people - AS or NT alike - like Mr McKinnon would indulge in for 'kicks', is absolutely wrong and does a huge injustice to the rest of the autistic community and those trying to protect them from the real injustices they face.

 

L&P

 

BD

[call me jaded]

I am a tad grumpy:

 

Dear NAS

 

I am a long supporter and indeed my son attends [a NAS] School. However I feel very strongly that giving the Gary McKinnon case a media platform is unwise, damages the image of NAS and goes beyond the bounds of advocacy. I have no objection whatsoever to NAS providing an opinion or guidance to what Gary McKinnon and his mother should do, but the lengths to which it has gone has given me serious doubts about the wisdom of the NAS board. Allowing his law-breaking to be described as a 'voyage of discovery' on an official NAS communication is a seriously disturbing error of judgement.

 

Many parents can sympathise with Janis Sharp but really if she wants media representation she needs to get a PR agent and do her own fundraising to pay for it. Better still she should get a fund going for his American defence team as surely this is more needed. I cannot help but feel that NAS has contributed to poorly conceived campaign, and would ask what legal advice NAS sought before supporting Gary McKinnon and his family to fight this extradition on the grounds of having an ASD. If it is possible for NAS to publish this advice or make a public statement on why they chose to offer this support in this way I'd be able to make a better judgement on whether I continue to support NAS.

 

Similarly I would like clarification on what the intention was in using ASD as a defence for Gary McKinnon's actions and what the NAS believes will be the long-term benefit of this course of action. I campaign very hard for people with disability to be treated as a normal person and that includes taking responsibility for the negatives along with the gains. I very much believe that inclusion is about removing the protective cotton wool that surrounds disability and the overall impression of this NAS campaign to plead for leniency because of disability. This is taking us back to the sixties, undoing the work of many (including Sybil Elgar). Could I ask if the views of NAS members were ever sought in this regard? Has it been debated at all?

 

I would be very grateful for answers to my many questions. There are plenty of charities out there vying for my limited largesse. I don't see why I should continue to donate to NAS when I am at such variance with this course of action. One campaign is undoing the work of many and NAS really needs to take stock of how it supports this family. A substantial number of parents and carers feel extradition is the right course of action and would like to hear more about why support has been given in this way.

 

Yours faithfully

Edited May 21, 2009 by call me jaded

[bid]

 

Bid

[Mum of 3]

.

That's a very good letter. JCMJ. I'm looking forward to readig the NAS response.

[call me jaded]

Just because somebody has a high level of technical knowledge in a particular subject does not imply in any way that they have a good knowledge of the law. I would hazard a guess that Gary McKinnon has a basic understanding of computer law but one does not have to be an expert in computer law to be a successful systems analyst. Maybe he underestimated the penalties if he was caught and it never crossed his mind that he could be extradited. Has an extradition for hacking ever happened before? I don't think so. Is there anything specifically written into British law saying that computer hackers can be extradited? Tell me where.

 

 

There is a basic principle in law that says ignorance of the law is no defence. He admits hacking and I think he admits deleting files. He needs to be tried.

 

The legal arguments of where I wouldn't even begin to have a view on and will leave it to all the various panels of judges who have decades of legal experience to draw on. I am interested in the law being applied equitably to all. If he is not extradicted that sets a precedent for all not to be extradicted and I don't think it is fair on our over-stretched judicial system to face this added burden let alone allow criminals a bolt-hole once they have committed a crime. The UK could become the judicial system of choice worldwide. The long-reaching effects of this could be enormous and damaging and not something we as a country can afford or even begin to think is a good idea.

 

Just my humble O

[Canopus]

Hi canopus - assuming that an officially published piece of legislation did exist what difference would it make?

 

It would basically confirm that the US government is not deploying a dirty underhand tactic and imposing the law in Britain to suit the interests of Uncle Sam. Call me cynical if you wish, but I think that the US is playing macho man and trying to frighten the rest of the world that if they dare to interfere with them, then they will incur the wrath of Uncle Sam in an American courtroom and an American jail.

 

would Gary McKinnon have researched first and then decided not to hack into the US govts computers? If that is the case why didn't he research the laws that do exist and not commit the crime on the basis of those potential repreisals? The point is he didn't give a flying fig what the possible outcome of being caught was because he didn't think he'd get caught!

 

I am unable to read his mind so I have no idea what his knowledge of the law is. There is the possibility that he knew the Computer Misuse Act 1990 inside out and was willing to go down for a couple of years in a British jail if he was caught and prosecuted, but had no idea that he would be extradited to the US and jailed there for 70 years.

 

prisons are full of crimninals who have exactly the same attitude, and AS doesn't justify it! The letter written by his mother is unrealistic and manipulative - 'a journey of discovery?' :COME ON... the only reason she's arguing that he should be tried here is that she anticipates the result of a UK trial will be better for her son. If the laws in this country were more stringent than those in the states she would be demanding with equal vigour that he be 'tried in the country where the offence took place'...

I don't blame her for that - I'd probably do the same in her shoes, and i'd possibly even try to play the AS 'trump' that his lawyers have. But that doesn't make it right...

 

I have no objection to Gary McKinnon being charged under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in a British court and jailed in Britain as set out in that Act. I wholeheartedly object to him being extradited and jailed in the US for 70 years.

 

as i've said - I am not unsympathetic to this man's plight but only in so far as i would sympathise with anyone who found themselves between a rock and a hard place for doing something so pointless, unnecessary and stupid... to claim that AS should be an excuse for this behaviour, given that it's exactly the kind of behaviour that people - AS or NT alike - like Mr McKinnon would indulge in for 'kicks', is absolutely wrong and does a huge injustice to the rest of the autistic community and those trying to protect them from the real injustices they face.

 

I don't think that AS is any excuse for his behaviour - or a passport to commit any crimes for that matter. In fact I think bringing AS into the case really does nothing but muddy the waters and the whole scenario could even backfire on the AS community. The fact is, AS or no AS, British computer hackers should be trialled in Britain and not extradited to the US. I would show just as much concern if Gary McKinnon were NT.

 

[bid]

The fact is, AS or no AS, British computer hackers should be trialled in Britain and not extradited to the US.

 

Why?

 

Bid

 

[Canopus]

Why?

 

1. Because he is a British citizen who committed the crime in the UK.

 

2. There is already sufficient legislation enshrined in British law to prosecute and jail hackers for their crimes committed both within Britain and abroad.

 

3. US law does not apply in Britain.

 

4. If extradition is imposed then the laws will need to be equal between all countries on a global basis before it is considered fair or acceptable. I believe the current situation is very one-sided as in the US can extradite British criminals but Britain cannot extradite American criminals. Countries having stronger rights to extradite than others effectively end up imposing whatever laws they want, and penalties for noncompliance, on a global basis.

 

[baddad]

It would basically confirm that the US government is not deploying a dirty underhand tactic and imposing the law in Britain to suit the interests of Uncle Sam. Call me cynical if you wish, but I think that the US is playing macho man and trying to frighten the rest of the world that if they dare to interfere with them, then they will incur the wrath of Uncle Sam in an American courtroom and an American jail.

 

 

 

I am unable to read his mind so I have no idea what his knowledge of the law is. There is the possibility that he knew the Computer Misuse Act 1990 inside out and was willing to go down for a couple of years in a British jail if he was caught and prosecuted, but had no idea that he would be extradited to the US and jailed there for 70 years.

 

 

 

I have no objection to Gary McKinnon being charged under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in a British court and jailed in Britain as set out in that Act. I wholeheartedly object to him being extradited and jailed in the US for 70 years.

 

 

 

I don't think that AS is any excuse for his behaviour - or a passport to commit any crimes for that matter. In fact I think bringing AS into the case really does nothing but muddy the waters and the whole scenario could even backfire on the AS community. The fact is, AS or no AS, British computer hackers should be trialled in Britain and not extradited to the US. I would show just as much concern if Gary McKinnon were NT.

 

Erm... You think the US government is playing macho man for wanting to try the man in the country the crime was commited (that it was commited remotely is neither here nor there) within and under the laws of that country? To me, it seems entirely reasonable... I would like to think that if someone accessed Britains defence computers from a remote location and were caught red handed then the country of origin would support us in trying him under our law in our country... That said, our 'defence computer' probably came from PC world's budget range, and our 'defence strategy' was probably left on a memorystick in the back of a london cab sometime and no ones ever owned up to it!

Accepting you're not a mind reader, you already seem to have decided what the American courts' verdict will be and the sentencing... Maybe you're right - I dunno - but either way it's not really your or 'our' decision to make. If a holidaying American broke into my house and accessed stuff on my computer I don't think I'd want a jury sympathetic to him making a decision about his sentencing. Would you?

 

A British computer hacker tried under British law... I totally agree, with the proviso that the 'hack' was on British property on British soil. It wasn't. Regardless of where the red button was, the offence took place on American property ...

 

Whether you make an issue of his AS or not is a moot point: the reason this thread appears on this forum is not because of the political debate surrounding it, it is because he is said to be autistic and this is a forum for/about autistic people...

If you are now saying the intent of your original post was to start a debate on American/World politics... well, you've been guilty of a bit of subtefuge yourself

 

L&P

 

BD

 

PS: just seen your next post.

He did not commit his crime in Britain. He remotely commited a crime on American property on American 'soil'... If i blow up my next door neighbours shed but the plunger is in my garden, the fact that i was in my own garden when the shed blew up doesn't detract from the fact that it was my dynamite and it shouldn't have been in his shed! Well, that's what the judge said, anyway

 

[Canopus]

A British computer hacker tried under British law... I totally agree, with the proviso that the 'hack' was on British property on British soil. It wasn't. Regardless of where the red button was, the offence took place on American property ...

 

I vaguely remember reading something about international hacking in a computer magazine many years ago. It mentioned something that if a hacker in France was hacking a computer in Sweden and connected via telecommunications facilities in Britain, then theoretically he could be tried under British law rather than French or Swedish law. The article didn't state how.

 

Another article in a computer magazine stated that legislation covering international as opposed to domestic hacking was vague. If the hacker resided in a country with strong laws against hacking then they could be prosecuted under those laws for hacking a computer in another country. If they lived in a country with weak laws against hacking - the third world and eastern Europe were mentioned - then they could get away with their crimes. There was no mention of extradition anywhere.

 

Whether you make an issue of his AS or not is a moot point: the reason this thread appears on this forum is not because of the political debate surrounding it, it is because he is said to be autistic and this is a forum for/about autistic people...

If you are now saying the intent of your original post was to start a debate on American/World politics... well, you've been guilty of a bit of subtefuge yourself

 

This is not politics. It is law. I didn't intend to start a debate on the technicalities of the law surrounding international hacking.

[bid]

I didn't intend to start a debate on the technicalities of the law surrounding international hacking.

 

I thought this was exactly what this thread is all about, and the fact that he is using AS as a defence!

 

Bid

[baddad]

I vaguely remember reading something about international hacking in a computer magazine many years ago. It mentioned something that if a hacker in France was hacking a computer in Sweden and connected via telecommunications facilities in Britain, then theoretically he could be tried under British law rather than French or Swedish law. The article didn't state how.

 

Another article in a computer magazine stated that legislation covering international as opposed to domestic hacking was vague. If the hacker resided in a country with strong laws against hacking then they could be prosecuted under those laws for hacking a computer in another country. If they lived in a country with weak laws against hacking - the third world and eastern Europe were mentioned - then they could get away with their crimes. There was no mention of extradition anywhere.

 

 

 

This is not politics. It is law. I didn't intend to start a debate on the technicalities of the law surrounding international hacking.

 

 

Sorry - it did sound as though you were talking politics:

 

It would basically confirm that the US government is not deploying a dirty underhand tactic and imposing the law in Britain to suit the interests of Uncle Sam. Call me cynical if you wish, but I think that the US is playing macho man and trying to frighten the rest of the world that if they dare to interfere with them, then they will incur the wrath of Uncle Sam in an American courtroom and an American jail.

 

I would absolutely agree that there shouldn't be one set of rules for the USA and another set for the rest of the world, but unfortunately international politics demands international cooperation. i think we should cooperate with the USA on this and any other country that wants to cooperate in a similar way, because to me it simply does seem fair that if someone commits a criminal act in one country then the laws of that country should apply... If this case can set some sort of legal precedent on which international cooperation can be built that's a good thing IMO...

If you think of, say, a British drug smuggler arrested in Thailand then they will face prosecution there. The role of the British consulate should be to intervene on their behalf and negotiate within that system - not to override it's jurisdiction.

It's hard to see the US government as any sort of 'victim', but in this case they are - however unlikely that sounds! Whatever ones feelings about the USA (and believe me there aint much i like about their political/social values) there's no avoiding that the Hack was enacted against them, on their home turf and that it broke their laws. As the meerkats say on the tv ads - is simples!

[warrenpenalver]

 

1. Because he is a British citizen who committed the crime in the UK.

 

2. There is already sufficient legislation enshrined in British law to prosecute and jail hackers for their crimes committed both within Britain and abroad.

 

3. US law does not apply in Britain.

 

4. If extradition is imposed then the laws will need to be equal between all countries on a global basis before it is considered fair or acceptable. I believe the current situation is very one-sided as in the US can extradite British criminals but Britain cannot extradite American criminals. Countries having stronger rights to extradite than others effectively end up imposing whatever laws they want, and penalties for noncompliance, on a global basis.

I agree with this 100%

 

I would absolutely agree that there shouldn't be one set of rules for the USA and another set for the rest of the world, but unfortunately international politics demands international cooperation. i think we should cooperate with the USA on this and any other country that wants to cooperate in a similar way, because to me it simply does seem fair that if someone commits a criminal act in one country then the laws of that country should apply... If this case can set some sort of legal precedent on which international cooperation can be built that's a good thing IMO...

If you think of, say, a British drug smuggler arrested in Thailand then they will face prosecution there. The role of the British consulate should be to intervene on their behalf and negotiate within that system - not to override it's jurisdiction.

Co-operation in prosecuting criminals is one thing, dragging someone into a foriegn country to serve thier justice laws is quite another.

 

I still cant see how he has committed a criminal act in the USA when he was physically in britain at the time??

 

As has been said he broke UK rules with his hacking.

 

If we allow the precedant of extraditing people for virtual crimes in a foriegn country then where does it end??

 

For example someone could state on an internet forum " I am going to shoot the US president". Now in the USA that is an offence to threaten in that way. Would you then consider it fair that the UK citizen is then extradited to the USA for that "crime"??? Another example, if i burnt an american flag here in UK would you consider it reasonable to be extradited???

 

For example, poland has strict laws surrounding swastickas and nazi symbology, so whats to stop people in the UK who run websites with information on World War 2 being extradited to poland because polish people can access the site??? or because their bandwidth provider moved to poland etc etc???

 

Where does it stop??? Its a grey area that, in my opinion, needs to be "black and white".

 

Co-operation between countrys is one thing, but removing someone to foriegn countrys for prosecution when they wernt even physically in that country to commit the "offence" is going too far. We have our own computer legislation that can deal with him here in the UK and imprison him here.

 

Plus the whole proposed sentance is a complete joke, 70 years for embarrassing the US government and deleting a bit of data when you can abuse and murder baby P and get 12 years!!! although that shows more how much of a joke the legal system in the UK is.

[NobbyNobbs]

I have previously stated that Gary McKinnon almost certainly knew that hacking is illegal. However, he almost certainly wasn't aware that the penalties would go as far as extradition to the US.

so he knowingly chose to commit a crime thinking that it was okay because the punishment wasn't that severe. defending that is llike defending the person who stabbed someone because they thought they wouldn't get caught!

 

he committed a very serious crime against the united states, knowing it was illegal irrespective of the extradition issue, and is now trying to wriggle his way out of the resulting punishment by claiming his AS means he deserves special treatment. if i somehow managed to get into a military facility and took it upon myself to launch a missile at the US 'just to see what happened', you can't tell me that i wouldln't in all likelihood be extradited, and he has in effect commited a crime of a similar nature

[baddad]

I agree with this 100%

 

 

Co-operation in prosecuting criminals is one thing, dragging someone into a foriegn country to serve thier justice laws is quite another.

 

I still cant see how he has committed a criminal act in the USA when he was physically in britain at the time??

 

As has been said he broke UK rules with his hacking.

 

If we allow the precedant of extraditing people for virtual crimes in a foriegn country then where does it end??

 

For example someone could state on an internet forum " I am going to shoot the US president". Now in the USA that is an offence to threaten in that way. Would you then consider it fair that the UK citizen is then extradited to the USA for that "crime"??? Another example, if i burnt an american flag here in UK would you consider it reasonable to be extradited???

 

For example, poland has strict laws surrounding swastickas and nazi symbology, so whats to stop people in the UK who run websites with information on World War 2 being extradited to poland because polish people can access the site??? or because their bandwidth provider moved to poland etc etc???

 

Where does it stop??? Its a grey area that, in my opinion, needs to be "black and white".

 

Co-operation between countrys is one thing, but removing someone to foriegn countrys for prosecution when they wernt even physically in that country to commit the "offence" is going too far. We have our own computer legislation that can deal with him here in the UK and imprison him here.

 

Plus the whole proposed sentance is a complete joke, 70 years for embarrassing the US government and deleting a bit of data when you can abuse and murder baby P and get 12 years!!! although that shows more how much of a joke the legal system in the UK is.

Hi warren - sorry, m8, but you're talking about completely different things... In the examples you mention you're talking about offensive material crossing international boundaries and/or people legally accessing material in one domain that is not legally available in their own: this man hacked in to American defence computers! And what's that bit about cooperation and 'dragging someone into a foreign country'? No one is dragging him anywhere - the UK government are cooperating with the American government. Whether you agree with that government decision is neither here nor there - he is not being 'dragged' he is being handed over. How could he commit a criminal act in the USA when he was physically in Britain? Remotely! If i telephone somebody in Pakistan and shout abuse at them it's irrelevent that I am shouting in England - the 'damage' is being done in Pakistan.. Is your idea of justice that you can do anything you want to anyone just so long as you put an international barrier between you and them? If i plant a bomb in your living room, but then set it off via a phonecall from Paris it's okay?

You are not talking about a flag burning or abusive talk you are talking about a deliberate hacking of American defence systems to access confidential material... whatever the intent, and however innocent the material actually accessed might have been you're talking about an incredibly serious International crime.

 

 

[Tally]

I don't honestly understand the legalities regarding where Gary McKinnon should be tried, but I think it is one for his legal team to resolve. I expect he was aware that under British law he could go to prison for two years, but didn't expect to get caught. Now he is faced with the possibility of 70 years in prison, his legal team are clutching at straws in order to get him a lesser sentence. I would probably do the same. But it doesn't make it right to use AS in this way.

 

I don't understand why, if he was driven merely by curiosity, he deleted some files. His aims do appear to have been malicious.

[Canopus]

so he knowingly chose to commit a crime thinking that it was okay because the punishment wasn't that severe. defending that is llike defending the person who stabbed someone because they thought they wouldn't get caught!

 

he committed a very serious crime against the united states, knowing it was illegal irrespective of the extradition issue, and is now trying to wriggle his way out of the resulting punishment by claiming his AS means he deserves special treatment. if i somehow managed to get into a military facility and took it upon myself to launch a missile at the US 'just to see what happened', you can't tell me that i wouldln't in all likelihood be extradited, and he has in effect commited a crime of a similar nature

 

I don't subscribe to the view 'break the law and take whatever punishments you are given'. If judges and senior politicians were able to dish out whatever punishments they wanted on an individual basis, rather than those written into the law, then there will be a lot of very rough justice. I strongly believe that criminals should only receive whatever punishments are already written into the law at the time they committed the crime and there must be no hidden extras.

 

Gary McKinnon hacked into the US government computers during 2001 and 2002, BEFORE the extradition treaty came into force in 2005.

 

You are not talking about a flag burning or abusive talk you are talking about a deliberate hacking of American defence systems to access confidential material... whatever the intent, and however innocent the material actually accessed might have been you're talking about an incredibly serious International crime.

 

In that case why isn't Gary McKinnon being trialled in an international court for breaking international law?

[baddad]

I don't subscribe to the view 'break the law and take whatever punishments you are given'. If judges and senior politicians were able to dish out whatever punishments they wanted on an individual basis, rather than those written into the law, then there will be a lot of very rough justice. I strongly believe that criminals should only receive whatever punishments are already written into the law at the time they committed the crime and there must be no hidden extras.

 

Gary McKinnon hacked into the US government computers during 2001 and 2002, BEFORE the extradition treaty came into force in 2005.

 

 

 

In that case why isn't Gary McKinnon being trialled in an international court for breaking international law?

 

No, I don't subscribe to that view either... but again, that's not the issue here. There are defined 'punishments' in each case - it's just the nature of the crime and the jurisdiction that's the subject of debate. Those are legal issues to be debated within the legal system... But trial by media or trial by public referendum are definitely much worse options thatn what we have at the moment, so no matter how many computer hackers or AS patronisers or anti-America/anti Government sympathisers there might be that shouldn't get in the way of the real issue that he hacked into American security data and corrupted it... doing my meerkat impression again: 'tis simples...

 

The point you raise about timing is a good one - and I'm sure Gary McKinnon's legal team will be making the most of it. However, it actually raises the same question I raised earlier - would Gary McKinnon have not done what he did had the legislation been in place? Did he research the implications of getting caught? if so why didn't the facts that he knew what he was doing was illegal stop him, or is the illegality of what he was doing morally irrelevent to him and he bases his decisions about criminal activity on personal assessment of his own ability (or inability) to 'take' the punishment if he gets caught? Now that is scary... And is the date relevent anyway? i don't know the wording of the extradition treaty, but unless it says 'anyone commiting these acts prior to...'

 

I meant it was an 'international crime' in that it was enacted by a person in one country against property/persons in another - it's not an 'International incident' needing resolution through international law: the existing laws of the two nations involved and their mutual cocoperation over the incident should be more than enough...

 

I'm gonna bow out of this pointless debate from now on, because as autism now seems to have been ruled out of the equation even by the OP it is now nothing more or less than a thread arguing about political policies. If i want to argue about politics i can do that anywhere - it's not what i come here for.

 

 

L&P

 

BD

[pearl]

Has anyone had an email from his mum via the NAS? I got one & deleted it so can't quote the content, but as far as I remember she was wanting his punishment to be in England rather than America where they would only be able to see him v rarely.

 

I had quite a heated debate at the conference I went to on Fri, where most of the peeps there were of the view that his AS excused him. They were quite surprised when I said that many AS (& NT) folk on the forum would beg to differ.

[Canopus]

The point you raise about timing is a good one - and I'm sure Gary McKinnon's legal team will be making the most of it. However, it actually raises the same question I raised earlier - would Gary McKinnon have not done what he did had the legislation been in place? Did he research the implications of getting caught? if so why didn't the facts that he knew what he was doing was illegal stop him, or is the illegality of what he was doing morally irrelevent to him and he bases his decisions about criminal activity on personal assessment of his own ability (or inability) to 'take' the punishment if he gets caught? Now that is scary... And is the date relevent anyway? i don't know the wording of the extradition treaty, but unless it says 'anyone commiting these acts prior to...'

 

I would hazard a guess it's like people may be happy to break a certain law if the penalty is a £10 fine, but few will consider breaking the same law if the penalty is extradition to Saudi Arabia and beheaded in public.

 

I certainly think that the timing is a stronger defence than having AS. I have not checked if there is (and IMO dishonest) wording in the extradition treaty to extradite people based in crimes committed before it came into force.

 

I had quite a heated debate at the conference I went to on Fri, where most of the peeps there were of the view that his AS excused him. They were quite surprised when I said that many AS (& NT) folk on the forum would beg to differ.

 

I don't really think AS comes into the equation at all. I personally think that Gary McKinnon should face trial in Britain and I would oppose the extradition just as much if he were NT. Britain already has sufficient laws to deal with computer hackers.

 

[call me jaded]

Has anyone had an email from his mum via the NAS? I got one & deleted it so can't quote the content, but as far as I remember she was wanting his punishment to be in England rather than America where they would only be able to see him v rarely.

 

I posted it earlier, #39.

 

I've had a a response to my letter.

We certainly appreciate that our involvement in this particular case can be quite decisive but after we launched the initial action for supporters to contact the UK Attorney General in January of this year, we actually doubled the size of our supporter base.

 

So there you have it - it's justified because people have signed up in support.

 

Does seem like the old problem of valuing what you can measure. A negative action (ie not supporting the actions of NAS) is not measured at all.

Edited May 24, 2009 by call me jaded

[bid]

I would hazard a guess it's like people may be happy to break a certain law if the penalty is a £10 fine, but few will consider breaking the same law if the penalty is extradition to Saudi Arabia and beheaded in public.

 

Legally ignorance is no defence...

 

Bid

Edited May 24, 2009 by bid

[warrenpenalver]

I still dont get why he needs to be extradited. Political embarassment has nothing to do with justice either. Imagine he had hacked into an americans email account and deleted all thier emails, chances are if he were caught, he would be punnished here. So why should it be different just because the data is on a US government computer???

 

It seems to me the US government are trying to "set an example" so they dont loose face for the real issue which is the fact he was capable of hacking into a so called secure system in the first place!!! And in that case his right to justice is being sacrificed in the name of politics.

 

If they successfully do this then will they extradite all internet paedophiles to the USA for prosecution for using US credit card payment systems ??? (albiet the actual material being hosted in other countrys!)

 

Does this also mean that producers of american porn which is outside BBFC classification will be prosecuted and extradited to the UK for thier material being accessable here????

 

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Imagine he had hacked into an americans email account and deleted all thier emails, chances are if he were caught, he would be punnished here. So why should it be different just because the data is on a US government computer???

theres a big difference between personal emails and national security

[Canopus]

Does this also mean that producers of american porn which is outside BBFC classification will be prosecuted and extradited to the UK for thier material being accessable here????

 

This is a very good point. An increasing number of banned videos are now available to watch on the internet that are stored on servers outside of Britain. Even young kids can easily access them (and don't give me any rubbish about filtering software that really is as much use as a chocolate teapot) so should foreigners who uploaded these banned videos be extradited to Britain and tried in a British court for breaking a British law?

 

 

[call me jaded]

The defence of the person who illegally accessed banned videos being 'they made me look at it'? Hmmm doesn't seem quite right.

 

I'm curious whether a number of hackers (it seems so easy to do, from everything I hear) are signing up to support GM in the hope that they have some kind of defence when they get caught.

 

I won't even buy knock-off DVDs.

[Canopus]

The defence of the person who illegally accessed banned videos being 'they made me look at it'? Hmmm doesn't seem quite right.

 

It's all too easy to inadvertently access a video nasty on the internet. In my experience of things, there is often little information next to the video that states it is banned in Britain.

 

I'm curious whether a number of hackers (it seems so easy to do, from everything I hear) are signing up to support GM in the hope that they have some kind of defence when they get caught.

 

The fact is, extraditing Gary McKinnon is rough justice and a 'hidden extra' punishment. I previously mentioned the timing of the introduction of the extradition treaty so it is likely that the law as it stands today with regard to hacking US computers from Britain is different from that in 2001/2.

[call me jaded]

It's all too easy to inadvertently access a video nasty on the internet. In my experience of things, there is often little information next to the video that states it is banned in Britain.

 

I put it to m'lud that you'd have to be looking for nasties to come across them. Then it'd be a case of caveat emptor. Hey, that law module finally came in useful.

 

The fact is, extraditing Gary McKinnon is rough justice and a 'hidden extra' punishment. I previously mentioned the timing of the introduction of the extradition treaty so it is likely that the law as it stands today with regard to hacking US computers from Britain is different from that in 2001/2.

 

Well considering his mother thought he was on a 'voyage of discovery' I think any kind of imprisonment is going to be something of a shock.

 

What is blatently dishonest (and what I'm spitting feathers about) is NAS's diversion from the fact that under the US legal system GM would not be disabled because they still measure IQ there and that is still more or less the 'black and white' decider for disability in terms of accessing mainstream education and I'm sure much else. GM is NOT disabled in the US: that is what (I believe) this entire palaver is all about.

 

Forgot to say I can't agree with a unilateral freeze-frame of time in terms of justice, because at the point GM committed the crime he had NOT been diagnosed with AS. You can't really accept one favourable term and reject a less favourable one on a whim.

Edited May 25, 2009 by call me jaded

[warrenpenalver]

theres a big difference between personal emails and national security

to a UK citizen in the UK how can there be a legal difference between personal data and government data in the US??? US security classifications do not apply in the UK unless its shared data "under agreement" where we are asked to apply a security classification to afford the equivilent protection.

 

The national security issue is the fact that he hacked in, and again thats a US NOT UK issue as UK national security was not effected...

 

Theres a much bigger issue here i think and thats international law between countrys and the need (or no need) for extradition. Our laws are MORE than adequate to deal with this offender in the UK justice system so what is the need for extradition?? there is NONE!!

 

If there were no internet or hacking laws here then i could understand the US wanting to extradite to serve the needs of achieving justice. But then you have the arguement that if its not against the law here then how can you extradite one of your own citizens for unfair trial of something that doesnt exist here. but thats not the case here.

 

Also the sentance he is likely to get in the UK is small compared to the US. So how in that case are we as a nation serving the best interests of UK justice for this man??? How is it justice to send him abroad for a long sentance beyond what he would get in the UK???

 

or is it acceptable these days to sacrifice the rights of the individual to save international political embarassment of a foriegn power???? Sure he made the US security departments look like incompetant idiots by finding a weak spot to hack in, but how does that really justify sending him to the US and spending potentially the rest of his life in jail???

Edited May 25, 2009 by warrenpenalver

[Sally44]

But the question originally posted is whether he should be tried in the USA.

As he also has a diagnosis of AS I am also mindful of that (in the same way someone with Downs Syndrome or Mental Illness could be tried in a foreign country).

So firstly why does he need to be tried in the USA when the USA do not agree to have any of their nationals tried in another country. And when they are just now admitting that their own government illegally removed various people from various countries by aircraft and took them to another destination where they could torture them without that persons own countries law or USA law applying? That does not incline me to agree to send anyone there. I don't have any confidence in the USA.

Should this man's diagnosis be given any consideration, I don't know. I don't know this man. And I don't know whether AS, or any other condition he has, may affect his ability to stop himself doing certain things. If he does have any issues like that then it needs to be looked at by professionals and for their opinion to be given in court. That is what would happen with anyone.

Maybe he is one of those people who believe in conspiracies and that was why he was searching the USA computers, to try to find the truth.

Did he realise that he could be exported and tried in the USA because of it, I don't know.

Sometimes I think that technology has advanced so much that I am not aware of what is lawful or not anymore when it involves computer or the like.

I had a friend, whose brother lost his job as a policeman because he lent his credit card to his brother to pay for something. This was a long time ago, when credit cards first became commonly used. Anyway, the brothers signature did not match the signature for the card and both brothers were arrested. They hadn't been intending to defraud. They had honestly misunderstood that they could not give the card to another family member. Both brothers lost their jobs and careers over that. If the brother had reported his card stolen, then I could understand that. I personally think that they should both have got away with a warning on that occasion because they were both in professional careers and had not intended to do anything illegal. But, that is another story, but I thought it demonstrates how people can quite innocently become involved in something illegal that they never intended to be part of.

I don't think that this person should escape the law just because he has a diagnosis.

But I do think it should be examined as to exactly what his understanding is.

In the same way someone with a learning disability could be used to smuggle drugs. And to what extent would they have a real understanding of what they were doing.

Of course this man was not duped into doing something he did not intend to do. He deliberately set out to hack into the computer system. Did he feel he was acting for the good, in the same way that those who exposed the Water Gate scandel exposed with the President was doing.

But I don't understand why he has to go to the US? Whatever he has done, and whatever penalty he has to serve, why can't he serve it here?

[baddad]

But I don't understand why he has to go to the US? Whatever he has done, and whatever penalty he has to serve, why can't he serve it here?

 

Hi Sally -

 

if someone broke into your house, stole your goods and damaged your property would you want that person tried by a jury of people who were sympathetic to his needs rather than yours? No? That's why the US want his trial to be under their jurisdiction, in the country where the offence took place (rather than where it was planned and initiated) and where he is subject to the laws pertinent to that country.

Your own or even world confidence in the American judicial system is a moot point, as long as our government are cooperating with America he is not being illegally deported. The AS smokescreen is also a moot point - if it is believed that he won't be fairly treated in American law or due consideration given then that can only be established at trial, you can't assume that the American defence team won't play any of the cards they are being dealt - however 'weak' that hand might be - on the basis of your own prejudices against the US. It's a completely different set of circumstances to, say, a Fatwah, where the intention is clearly defined and the sentence already decided - 70 years is the maximum sentence it is not the only one and any mitigating circumstances will be entered and considered. Whatever the maximum sentence it is possible that he could get a lighter sentence in the states than he would in the UK.

However sympathetic you might feel toward the accused and however unsympatheitc you might feel to the victim, the simple fact is that the accused is rightly accused and the victim - however unsuited that role seems - is clearly defined, as is the location where the offence took place. GM hitting 'delete' on his keyboard was the trigger for the offence, but the offence was commited in the US.

 

[Karen A]

But the question originally posted is whether he should be tried in the USA.

As he also has a diagnosis of AS I am also mindful of that (in the same way someone with Downs Syndrome or Mental Illness could be tried in a foreign country).

So firstly why does he need to be tried in the USA when the USA do not agree to have any of their nationals tried in another country. And when they are just now admitting that their own government illegally removed various people from various countries by aircraft and took them to another destination where they could torture them without that persons own countries law or USA law applying? That does not incline me to agree to send anyone there. I don't have any confidence in the USA.

Should this man's diagnosis be given any consideration, I don't know. I don't know this man. And I don't know whether AS, or any other condition he has, may affect his ability to stop himself doing certain things. If he does have any issues like that then it needs to be looked at by professionals and for their opinion to be given in court. That is what would happen with anyone.

Maybe he is one of those people who believe in conspiracies and that was why he was searching the USA computers, to try to find the truth.

Did he realise that he could be exported and tried in the USA because of it, I don't know.

Sometimes I think that technology has advanced so much that I am not aware of what is lawful or not anymore when it involves computer or the like.

I had a friend, whose brother lost his job as a policeman because he lent his credit card to his brother to pay for something. This was a long time ago, when credit cards first became commonly used. Anyway, the brothers signature did not match the signature for the card and both brothers were arrested. They hadn't been intending to defraud. They had honestly misunderstood that they could not give the card to another family member. Both brothers lost their jobs and careers over that. If the brother had reported his card stolen, then I could understand that. I personally think that they should both have got away with a warning on that occasion because they were both in professional careers and had not intended to do anything illegal. But, that is another story, but I thought it demonstrates how people can quite innocently become involved in something illegal that they never intended to be part of.

I don't think that this person should escape the law just because he has a diagnosis.

But I do think it should be examined as to exactly what his understanding is.

In the same way someone with a learning disability could be used to smuggle drugs. And to what extent would they have a real understanding of what they were doing.

Of course this man was not duped into doing something he did not intend to do. He deliberately set out to hack into the computer system. Did he feel he was acting for the good, in the same way that those who exposed the Water Gate scandel exposed with the President was doing.

 

Hi Sally.

I don't think that a belief that an individual has that they are acting for the good is a valid reason for treating the offence any differently.

After all suicide bombings are a regular occurrence in some parts of the world.

As far as I understand suicide bombers usually believe that they are acting for a greater good.They deliberately set out to kill other individuals on the basis of a strongly held personal conviction.The conviction is so strongly held that they will die for it.

As far as I understand most people who engage in terrorist activities do so on the basis that they have a personal belief regarding an issue.

They would argue that the state or individual who is subject to attack is so wrong that there is a justification for violence.

Once again this weekend an individual has been murdered in Northern Ireland.

They were allegedly murdered because it was believed that their religious beliefs were such that another individual believed it was right to murder them.

 

On my doorstep yesterday police as far as I can gather were involved in an arrest of an individual almost certainly alleged to have been involved in dealing in druggs.

In a couple of weeks we will have security cameras and the individuals concerned will find somewhere else in the borough to deal.

They will do this because they will make a calculated assessment of the likelihood of being spotted and evidence being provided.

These are not naive individuals who are not aware of what they are doing.They are individuals who make a calculated assessment of the risks of being caught.

Yesterday for whatever reason they were caught out.

They may well claim that there are reasons for their chosen occupation including deprivation.

As the parent of a teenage child I do not have a great deal of sympathy regarding the reasons they may give.

I also noted last week that the deffence in the baby trial included detailed reports regarding mental health difficulties and learning difficulties in all of the defendants.

I do not think the public have much sympathy with the accused and neither did the judge who sentenced them

Mental health difficulties and childhood depravation are becoming common features in defence of individuals who committ violent crime.

I have suffered mental ill health and regard myself as having suffered the impact of childhood trauma.So I am very much an advocate of individuals in these situations.

I do not think that the reporting of mental health difficulties, childhood trauma or learning disabilities in a way which suggests manipulation by individuals to lesson prison sentences is at all helpul for those individuals who suffer these conditions.

I do not think that this case is any different with regard to this individual and AS.

I would highlight the issue I raised earlier.The individual did not have an AS diagnosis when he was originally threatened with extradition.Karen.

[Canopus]

However sympathetic you might feel toward the accused and however unsympatheitc you might feel to the victim, the simple fact is that the accused is rightly accused and the victim - however unsuited that role seems - is clearly defined, as is the location where the offence took place. GM hitting 'delete' on his keyboard was the trigger for the offence, but the offence was commited in the US.

 

I have previously stated that US law does not apply in Britain and the extradition treaty was not in force at the time he committed the offences.

 

You might also be interested in knowing that the EU thinks its law applies in the US and every other non-EU country. In 2003, the EU demanded that e-commerce companies based outside of EU countries start charging EU VAT on sales to customers in EU countries, then hand over the revenue collected to the EU. An American friend runs an internet based business and DOES NOT charge VAT on sales of IT services and digital material sold on the internet to EU customers. He says there is no legislation in US Federal Law or the State Law of Indiana demanding that he charges VAT to EU customers, and EU law does not apply in the US. Only if there are changes in the law on his side of the Atlantic will he start charging VAT to EU customers. In the US, IT services and digital material bought on the internet are exempt from state Sales Tax. My friend has told me that if a reciprocal extradition treaty between the US and Britain was in force, then he (and thousands of other Americans) could theoretically be extradited to Britain and trialled in a British court for tax evasion under British and EU law.

[bid]

Er, call me old-fashioned, but...

 

...he shouldn't have done something illegal in the first place, then he wouldn't be in this situation!

 

Bid

[Mumble]

...he shouldn't have done something illegal in the first place, then he wouldn't be in this situation!

:clap: If you choose to do something wrong, you must also choose to take the punishment (as opposed to choose the punishment... )

 

On my doorstep yesterday police as far as I can gather were involved in an arrest of an individual almost certainly alleged to have been involved in dealing in drugs.

:o I do hope you mean 'doorstep' as in local neighbourhood :lol:

 

 

 

[Karen A]

:clap: If you choose to do something wrong, you must also choose to take the punishment (as opposed to choose the punishment... )

 

 

:o I do hope you mean 'doorstep' as in local neighbourhood :lol:

 

Yes I do mean doorstep.As in outside of our front door on a bankholiday afternoon.

I was outside happily potting up plants when one young man charged into the close followed by two others.

The other two grabbed the first and dragged him to the ground.

I was all set to phone the police to report an assualt when three police vans arrived.

It became apparent that the two men following who I was about to report to the police were [plain clothed ] police.

Like a TV episode it was.

 

I live in the same close that we lived in when my mum visited when she was alive.

Mum asked ''Do those young men live round here they appear to be around a lot''

I replied ''well they live around here but not in our close''

Mum then asked ''Well are they young business men ?''

I responded ''Well I suppose they could be described as young business men and they are very successful at their chosen career ''

Mum died four years ago and was none the wiser.Some things are better left unsaid.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Karen A

[baddad]

I have previously stated that US law does not apply in Britain and the extradition treaty was not in force at the time he committed the offences.

 

Which is why they want to try him in the US, where the offence took place and where US law does apply, and it doesn't really matter if the extradition treaty was written on a beer mat three hours ago if the US government and American government are agrreing to cooperate and that it should be applied in this case... GM is NOT the victim here. Believe me, I think there are many, MANY things that the British government should NOT have agreed to cooperate with the US government on - but extraditing a man who commited a criminal act against the American Govt on American 'soil' so that he can be fairly tried under that country's legal system isn't one of them. I hope they would do the same for us and/or that any other country would given that these are civil defence issues, but if it turned out they (or any other country) didn't it wouldn't change how i felt about this morally, it would just leave a bad taste in my mouth that we were 'shortchanged'. TBH I have an intense hatred of all legal 'loopholes' - and the American justice system seems to exploit them more expertly than any other legal system - because they rarely seem to work for the protection of the victim but as a method by which the offender can evade the consequences of his crime. Whatever else you might say about the objections you raise they are loopholes, because there is absolutely no doubt about the offence that took place, the person commiting that offence or the 'victims' of that offence or of the location where the offence took place...

 

[Canopus]

Which is why they want to try him in the US, where the offence took place and where US law does apply, and it doesn't really matter if the extradition treaty was written on a beer mat three hours ago if the US government and American government are agrreing to cooperate and that it should be applied in this case...

 

Reading between the lines I get the message that if the British government refuses to co-operate with the US government, but instead prosecutes Gary McKinnon in Britain, then it will result in serious repercussions for the Britain in the future. A friend who is more knowledgeable about international affairs than I am says that the whole situation is school playground style bullying where if a weaker kid (namely Britain in this instance) does not take orders from a big bully (namely the US in this instance) to do something he doesn't want to do, then he will get his face punched at breaktime.

 

[baddad]

Reading between the lines I get the message that if the British government refuses to co-operate with the US government, but instead prosecutes Gary McKinnon in Britain, then it will result in serious repercussions for the Britain in the future. A friend who is more knowledgeable about international affairs than I am says that the whole situation is school playground style bullying where if a weaker kid (namely Britain in this instance) does not take orders from a big bully (namely the US in this instance) to do something he doesn't want to do, then he will get his face punched at breaktime.

 

I think that's probably a very realistic definition of the relationship between Britian and the US generally, but i don't know (or care) if it applies to this case specifically... what i would say, is if Britain is going to stand up to the bully I'd rather they did it over something a bit more deserving than an idiot computer hacker (in terms of deed - not intellect obviously) openly flaunting the law and taking potshots at the US...

 

[Canopus]

I think that's probably a very realistic definition of the relationship between Britian and the US generally, but i don't know (or care) if it applies to this case specifically... what i would say, is if Britain is going to stand up to the bully I'd rather they did it over something a bit more deserving than an idiot computer hacker (in terms of deed - not intellect obviously) openly flaunting the law and taking potshots at the US...

 

 

Would you be happy to see a British citizen extradited to Iran and trialled in an Iranian court for dropping a sweet wrapper on the pavement outside the Iranian embassy in London ten years ago? If found guilty he will be hanged in public from the hook of a crane.

 

I can assure you that the law on littering as it stands in Britain does not allow for such a punishment. If Britain were to implement an extradition treaty with Iran in the future then it is very possible that the aforementioned scenario may indeed materialise. The Iranian government might interpret the crime as an attack on Iran. Britain already has sufficient laws to prosecute people for littering pavements with sweet wrappers.