# Support Gary McKinnon



## sparticus (Jun 10, 2006)

Gary McKinnon. Pledge to oppose Gary's proposed extradition to the United States.

We are very afraid that our son Gary might be extradited to the United States to face a possible seventy years in a US prison for computer misuse/trespassing into Pentagon/military computers four years ago. 
Gary was originally questioned by the UK police four years ago; they told him that he would face six months community service but in the end the UK police decided not to prosecute Gary and he was released without charge. 

Gary was arrested by UK police on behalf of America in 2005 (more than three years later) and now some four years after the event the US want to extradite Gary where he will face a possible seventy year sentence. 

Thank you to everyone who is supporting Gary and all messages of support have been greatly appreciated by him, especially when he has been feeling a bit down. Gary's bail conditions prevent him from using the internet but he wanted to thank everyone who took the time to send an email of support as it has meant a great deal to him. 


We're writing to everyone to ask for your help in helping Gary. 

We would be incredibly grateful if you could please sign the pledge (link at bottom of the page)  to write to the Home Secretary to voice your opinion against the proposed extradition of Gary (McKinnon) to the US. 
Gary is facing seventy years in an American prison for computer misuse. There were blank passwords and no firewall protecting the computers belonging to the government of the worlds superpower. 

Gary is a kind and gentle musician who has acted in and composed music for the film Lunar Girl. He is not a malicious hacker and does not have any superior computer knowledge which was very basic at the time of the incident which was four years ago. 
He admits he trespassed out of curiosity but he did not break in as there were no locks, no passwords (no security) 

It is a reflection of our world when people who murder, rape and abuse children get sentences from as little as six months. 

Our UK government/home secretary recently released hundreds of criminals including rapists and murderers from abroad, some of whom have very recently committed murder again in the UK, yet our government wants to send Gary to America to face seventy years in jail for a computer hacking offence. 

We need all the help we can get and every signature will be greatly appreciated. If you could also actually write to John Reed, the Home Secretary voicing your opposition to Gary's proposed extradition, that would be the best of all and would be greatly appreciated but please sign the pledge. 

If everyone who signs the pledge below, could also add emails of friends who may sign that would also be incredibly helpful. These emails will only be used for this purpose and for no other. 

All support would be gratefully appreciated

Kindest Regards

Gary's parents
http://www.pledgebank.com/FreeGary

http://FreeGary.org.uk

www.lunargirl.com 

For people that would like to hear and/or see the BBC interviews with Gary, use these links (broadband probably required).

Audio:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/aud... World Service, Sat 23rd July 2005 - 11am.mp3 (4.5 Megs)

Video:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/video/Gary McKinnon Interview - BBC - 05 May 2006.wmv

(33 Megs)

www.disclosureproject.org


----------



## RaverDrew (Jun 10, 2006)

I've been following this story for a while.

I feel sorry for him because they are destroying his life.

But on the other hand wtf do you expect when you go snooping around the american military ?


----------



## cemertyone (Jun 10, 2006)

RaverDrew said:
			
		

> I've been following this story for a while.
> 
> I feel sorry for him because they are destroying his life.
> 
> But on the other hand wtf do you expect when you go snooping around the american military ?



Agreed he has been a naughty boy...BUT there are much bigger issues at steak here over and above Gary`s personal prediciment...namely the manner in which our fucking New Labour rulers have allowed decades of standard procedures required to extridite UK citizens anywhere else must rest on prima facia evidence being put before a court.
The USA can now demand that any uk citizen can be extradited to that country and yet there is no recipricosity in return......
We are moving into the realms of a Police state....


----------



## llantwit (Jun 11, 2006)

cemertyone said:
			
		

> Agreed he has been a naughty boy...BUT there are much bigger issues at steak here over and above Gary`s personal prediciment...namely the manner in which our fucking New Labour rulers have allowed decades of standard procedures required to extridite UK citizens anywhere else must rest on prima facia evidence being put before a court.
> The USA can now demand that any uk citizen can be extradited to that country and yet there is no recipricosity in return......
> We are moving into the realms of a Police state....


Agreed - and no matter how naughty he was in his internet snooping, there's no way he should spend any time (let alone his own life  ) in a fucking american jail.


----------



## sparticus (Jun 28, 2006)

Protest tomorrow in London...............

Just to let you know that there is a protest taking place against the one sided extradition treaty of British subjects to America. 

To anyone in London who can: Please come along and support this demonstration which has been organised by the Telegraph.  

If possible bring Free Gary Placards or wear Free Gary T Shirts. 
Or bring placards in favour of all who are being extradited. 

The March leaves on Thursday 29th June at 5pm from The Institute of Directors in Pall Mall and marches on to St James' Park and then marches on to the Home Office in Marsham St London where letters can be passed to the Home Secretary.  

If you know of any other websites this can be posted on,  I'd be grateful if you could pass on the info. to anyone and everyone you can.

All support is very greatly appreciated.

Janis (Gary's mum)


----------



## sparticus (Jun 28, 2006)

Recent interview with Gary and furtther background

http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_gary_mckinnon.htm


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2006)

I feel sorry for the guy, but I don't see how being associated with "the Internet's number one source for current UFO information" is going to help him fight extradition or help garner general support.


----------



## In Bloom (Jun 28, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I feel sorry for the guy, but I don't see how being associated with "the Internet's number one source for current UFO information" is going to help him fight extradition or help garner general support.


Clearly the CIA really want him because he nearly exposed The Truth(TM) about the alien visitors to our planet.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Jun 28, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I feel sorry for the guy, but I don't see how being associated with "the Internet's number one source for current UFO information" is going to help him fight extradition or help garner general support.



Having an article about you and your UFO research findings in Nexus probably doesn't help either!!!


----------



## sparticus (Jun 29, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I feel sorry for the guy, but I don't see how being associated with "the Internet's number one source for current UFO information" is going to help him fight extradition or help garner general support.



Given that the case revolves around Gary's admitted hacking of US military computers and access to UFO information, there hardly seems to be a point to ignoring the connection.

But regardless of what you believe about UFOs, Gary's extradition should be opposed on principle.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 1, 2006)

if I was the us military bloke who put an unsecured server on the net I'd be opposing his extradition


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 26, 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7912538.stm

Looks like they're throwing the guy to the wolves.



> British computer hacker Gary McKinnon has lost the latest round of his battle against extradition to the US.
> 
> The Crown Prosecution Service refused to bring charges against him in the UK.
> 
> Mr McKinnon, 42, from Wood Green, north London, faces up to 70 years in prison if found guilty in the US of breaking into military computers.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2009)

Oh FFS.  Out of sodding order.


----------



## jimadore (Feb 26, 2009)

Dont  punish gary mckinnon  give him  the  top job in computor security, if he can hack  the system its no good ? stupid American military.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 26, 2009)

Its digusting. The American State should be on trial, not a lone fantasist.


----------



## obanite (Feb 26, 2009)

Yeah, the one-sided extradition treaty is fucking bullshit. I'm so fucked off at our government.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 26, 2009)

obanite said:


> Yeah, the one-sided extradition treaty is fucking bullshit.



Is that not standard procedure for a client state?


----------



## 888 (Feb 27, 2009)

This is fucked. I hope he manages to stay in the UK



Paul Marsh said:


> Having an article about you and your UFO research findings in Nexus probably doesn't help either!!!



Ah, Nexus. That explains the bizarre reference to hundreds of released re-offending foreign rapists.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 27, 2009)

Being a  paranoid conspiarcy theorist with aspergers syndrome hardly warrants a life spent rottening in a yank jail.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 27, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Being a  paranoid conspiarcy theorist with aspergers syndrome hardly warrants a life spent rottening in a yank jail.



I don't think the US thinks he's any kind of threat - it's all about underlining the fact that we're their bitch.


----------



## purplex (Feb 27, 2009)

Hes a very naughty boy, dont wilfully hack into us military systems and you wont find yourself in big trouble.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 27, 2009)

purplex said:


> Hes a very naughty boy, dont wilfully hack into us military systems and you wont find yourself in big trouble.



I don't even buy the very naughty bit. My understanding is he ventured onto an almost unprotected system without covering his tracks.

The case against is utter spite.


----------



## xenon (Feb 27, 2009)

Mr Moose said:


> I don't even buy the very naughty bit. My understanding is he ventured onto an almost unprotected system without covering his tracks.
> 
> The case against is utter spite.




Yep. 

As hackers go, he wasn't even that good. This is a show trial.


----------



## JeniD (Feb 27, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Clearly the CIA really want him because he nearly exposed The Truth(TM) about the alien visitors to our planet.


----------



## dlx1 (Feb 27, 2009)

70 years. 



> US government says caused damage costing $800,000 (£550,000).


Is there proof of this damage or is that in the same folder alien photos.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 27, 2009)

dlx1 said:


> 70 years.
> 
> Is there proof of this damage or is that in the same folder alien photos.



The £550,000 figure is obviously utter horseshit.


----------



## purplex (Feb 27, 2009)

He came too close...
He knew too much...


----------



## TomPaine (Feb 27, 2009)

Doesn't this guy suffer from a form of Auspergers Syndrome, a form of Autisim as well?

Can't say it looks to good on the US government having the British government extradite an autistic UFO hunter for wandering into their evidently craply protected networks?
Then banging him up in the nick for 70 years.... gimme a break, they should have been glad it wasn't real espionage. The guy was looking for space aliens for fuck sake....

Fact is somebody who was responsible for their actions shouldn't do things like that and would deserve to be nicked or whatever, evidently though a guy who is suffering from Autisim and is hunting out UFOs on the internet isn't probably in full command of his own actions...


----------



## dlx1 (Mar 2, 2009)

He now has support from Boris & Sting.


----------



## In Bloom (Mar 2, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> Doesn't this guy suffer from a form of Auspergers Syndrome, a form of Autisim as well?
> 
> Can't say it looks to good on the US government having the British government extradite an autistic UFO hunter for wandering into their evidently craply protected networks?
> Then banging him up in the nick for 70 years.... gimme a break, they should have been glad it wasn't real espionage. The guy was looking for space aliens for fuck sake....
> ...


People with ASD (they're not "sufferers" by the way, it isn't a disease) are perfectly capable of taking responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, in all but the most severe cases.

It's ludicrous that McKinnon is being extradited and threatened with a long prison sentence for something so silly, but his Asperger syndrome is not relevant here and to suggest that it should act as a "Get out of jail free card" is patronising in the extreme and displays a near total ignorance of the nature of his condition.


----------



## Homeless Mal (Mar 3, 2009)

It is a disgrace that the UK would allow this man to be deprted to face such an opressive sentence that is on the cards.  It would be a shocking display if disloyalty.  I am not usually 'political' but I have been following the case in the local papers and think it is important the state back this man.

eta: re previous post, Aspergers or not the *point *is the fact the govt would willing sacrifice this person, their citizen, to another country for such a 'crime'.  it would be very very wrong and would in many ways give a greener light for huge social disobedience and suspicion and contempt for the state.


----------



## purplex (Mar 4, 2009)

Its absolutely right that he should be tried in the US. The systems he broke into were in the US. He should be tried in the jurisdiction where he broke the law, that would be the US, that makes perfect sense.    
He knew precisely what he was doing, he was a sysadmin. He knew what the risks were. 
Furthermore the argument that it was someone elses fault because they didnt secure their network properly is no acceptable excuse, if I leave my door unlocked you still cant come into my home.  
People are pre-supposing the verdict before the case has been heard, there is every possibility he'll be seen as a whacko and will only get 50 years or so in prison.


----------



## dlx1 (Mar 4, 2009)

> will only get 50 years or so in prison


still 50year a bit strong, you could rape a child and get less


----------



## purplex (Mar 4, 2009)

dlx1 said:


> still 50year a bit strong, you could rape a child and get less



I was joking about the 50 years but the rest still stands.


----------



## dlx1 (Jun 9, 2009)

Still dragging on, image have this hanging over your head 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8090789.stm

Dishion<? next two days


----------



## Meltingpot (Jun 9, 2009)

xenon said:


> Yep.
> 
> As hackers go, he wasn't even that good. This is a show trial.



Don't know about the first bit, agree with the second. It's outrageous that he can be extradited to the US but we don't have any reciprocal extradition rights over US citizens who commit crimes in our country. As 8ball says, we're America's bitch.

BTW, I also have Asperger's and would repeat what others said about people with Asperger's being responsible for their actions. Gary would have known what he was doing - it's the reaction to it that's so disproportionate IMO.


----------



## pinched_nerve (Jun 10, 2009)

Not that any notice will be taken, and the scope's a bit narrow but...

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/mckinnon09/


I honestly can't believe this is still dragging on.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jun 10, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> People with ASD (they're not "sufferers" by the way, it isn't a disease) are perfectly capable of taking responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, in all but the most severe cases.
> 
> It's ludicrous that McKinnon is being extradited and threatened with a long prison sentence for something so silly, but his Asperger syndrome is not relevant here and to suggest that it should act as a "Get out of jail free card" is patronising in the extreme and displays a near total ignorance of the nature of his condition.


I disagree.  I think it is relevant.

An Aspie - who would like struggle in everyday social interactions - would be very vulnerable indeed in a prison setting, especially a long-term secure prison with murderers and rapists and all sorts.  They just don't have the devious gene required to survive in a place like that.

Aspies also tend to suffer from co-morbids (I agree with you, btw, about people not 'suffering' from AS), but suffer they can and do from co-morbids, like depression, anxiety and so on.  There are health and wellbeing implications related to incarcerating an Aspie in the kind of hardcore high-security facility where it's likely McKinnon would end up if extradited and convicted.

That makes his condition relevant.  Not in the sense of a 'get out of jail free' card, but in the sense that a high-security jail, where fellow convicts are likely to be extremely dangerous to a vulnerable and not-particularly wily or street-wise individual (I'm assuming, based on personal experience and knowledge of the Aspie community here) would be a cruel and unusual punishment.

And while, yes, I don't dispute that McKinnon knew that he was doing something a bit naughty, so did have an awareness of right and wrong, I don't doubt that he had no inkling whatsoever of the wider implications of his actions, that it would be perceived as a terrorist threat.  I do think that being hyper-focussed and not being able to see a bigger picture is something that affects some Aspies.  

I mean, even most people appreciate that there are leagues of wrong, i.e. speeding on a motorway late at night isn't as bad as armed robbery of a bank.

Who could have foreseen that looking for information about UFO conspiracies and proof of alien life-forms or whatever he was looking for could have ended up with him facing terrorism charges.  

As an Aspie, that does not compute.  Aspies are quite logical, as I'm sure you know.  It would be extremely bewildering for an Aspie - who *knows* he's not a terrorist, and hasn't committed any act of terrorism, to be facing spending the rest of his life in prison for committing offences he hasn't committed.  Does not compute.  

It would be bad enough to be charged and convicted with offences that had been committed, that would be logical, that would compute.  But this just doesn't.  And I think that would lead to a lot of additional anguish for an Aspie.

Think of a miscarriage of justice, and the sense of frustration and futility an NT (neurotypical) would feel.  Now think what effect a miscarriage of justice would have on someone who is hardwired for order, logic, it would totally blow a brain fuse.  The impact on an Aspie would, I would argue, be far worse than the impact of such a situation on an NT.  It would be not just the regular punishment, but a cruel and unusual punishment over and above that which would be experienced by an NT.

So I do believe his diagnosis is relevant.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jun 10, 2009)

Meltingpot said:


> Don't know about the first bit, agree with the second. It's outrageous that he can be extradited to the US but we don't have any reciprocal extradition rights over US citizens who commit crimes in our country. As 8ball says, we're America's bitch.
> 
> BTW, I also have Asperger's and would repeat what others said about people with Asperger's being responsible for their actions. Gary would have known what he was doing - it's the reaction to it that's so disproportionate IMO.


Agreed on both counts.

The whole extradition treaty issue is uneven and wrong, and McKinnon is being used as a political football.

I'm also Aspie and agree with Aspies being responsible for their actions, but with the caveat that the condition is relevant in terms of an Aspie's perhaps different perception as to what they've done wrong, and also the impact of the punishment, it has to be proportionate, and it ought not to cause any undue suffering and harm, and certain living conditions could prove to cause suffering and harm.

Other criminals might see prison as an occupational hazard and be better able to cope with it, whereas someone who just realises he was being a bit naughty might find it harder to cope.

There is also a sense of what is supposed to be responsible for, and his and others *perceptions* of what he's done wrong:  By which I mean it's 'virtual' it's not 'real' it's not like breaking into Fort Knox and stealing is it, he didn't physically break in by breaking locks, jimmying doors open, they left their security wide open, in a sense, it's like someone visiting Fort Knox and finding a door open and deciding to have a nosey around, and he didn't steal anything, so what's the biggy, kinda thing?  Effectively, McKinnon's perception of what he's done wrong, of what he's responsible for is miles apart from the American authorities perception of what he did wrong, of what he's responsible for, iyswim.  So it's all very well, people saying that he has to accept responsibility, but what for?  For being a bit naughty and looking for UFOs?  For being a terrorist and threatening US national security?  It's not a matter of glass half full glass half empty, or six of one and half a dozen of the other.  It's a matter of glass nearly full and glass nearly empty, and a 11 of one and 1 of the other.  The perceptions of what's been done are leagues apart.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 11, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> An Aspie - who would like struggle in everyday social interactions - would be very vulnerable indeed in a prison setting, especially a long-term secure prison with murderers and rapists and all sorts.  They just don't have the devious gene required to survive in a place like that.



Hmm.  

'Doing your own time' and keeping out of other people's face is also a useful skill in prison, and Aspies can be pretty good at this.

I don't agree that he should get any kind of special treatment, especially since he seems so high-functioning.  I just disagree with what the U.S. Government is doing because it's wrong.

As for being possibly 'unable to see the bigger picture' in connection with his actions and their consequences, that's something he's likely to share with 99% of the prison population.


----------



## dlx1 (Jul 31, 2009)

loses extradition appeal. he fuck now


----------



## In Bloom (Jul 31, 2009)

While we're on the subject, does anybody find themselves getting a bit annoyed that being a bit odd is now considered a medical condition?  There's nothing wrong with most people diagnosed with ASD these days that a few nights out of the house and a good shagging wouldn't fix


----------



## Meltingpot (Jul 31, 2009)

I'd LOVE to agree with the last bit (though I did do a bit of clubbing when I was younger) but sadly there's no evidence that Asperger's is cured by having lots of sex. Mind you, I'm happy to try it if I can find a suitable volunteer....


----------



## moon23 (Jul 31, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> While we're on the subject, does anybody find themselves getting a bit annoyed that being a bit odd is now considered a medical condition?  There's nothing wrong with most people diagnosed with ASD these days that a few nights out of the house and a good shagging wouldn't fix



Here is your prescription, a bag of pills some banging tekno and a good shag. Now go ave it. 

This sounds like proper alternative therapy.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 31, 2009)

This is a miscarriage of justice his Aspergers is a factor in his actions. The whole thing is obviously not about him but political game play. Fundamentally when we can't extradite US citizens they should not be able to extradite ours, I'm sad there was not more support for his case amongst the legal profession, having met his Solicitor at a support demo who was very dedicated but quite young


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 31, 2009)

This is disgusting and makes me so angry. All he needed was a slap on the wrists, but instead, our own government is sending him to a foreign country where he might have to spend the rest of his life in prison. I really feel for the poor guy, I hope he goes into hiding now.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jul 31, 2009)

so his appeal failed then


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 31, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I disagree.  I think it is relevant.
> 
> An Aspie - who would like struggle in everyday social interactions - would be very vulnerable indeed in a prison setting, especially a long-term secure prison with murderers and rapists and all sorts.  They just don't have the devious gene required to survive in a place like that.
> 
> ...



Lots of people would be 'vulnerable' in a US prison, not just people with an AS diagnosis. Trying to say that means at some level, it would be "okay" to send a "normal" person to jail - for as long -in those circumstances, and I don't think it would be.
I don't blame him for trying that line, though.

The point is, should the UK be extraditing _anyone_ in that position if they stand a good chance of a disproportionate sentence - I think not.

Plenty of so called "neuro typicals" also crack up in prisons, see the suicide rates  Opposing it on principle it's wrong is fair enough, but it would be wrong for anybody.


eta: saying why he might not have understood the full implications of what he was doing is different, though.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 31, 2009)

As an Aspie myself, I can see how his condition might have affected his perception of his actions and the possible consequences thereof. Like amany Aspies and autistic people, when I'm really interested in a subject I tend to get very, very interested, thus I can end up knowing an awful lot more than some folk about particular subjects and find myself almost fixated on finding more information. If Gary MacKinnon was affected in terms of becoming fixated on his chosen subject, and became fixated enough to either brush off or simply not consider that breaking into US computer systems was going to carry with it all manner of consequences for him, then perhaps this could be used as a partial defence.

One thing is for certain, the potential sentence of 60-70 years in prison is ridiculous and unjustifiable in the circumstances of his particular case, whether he an Aspie or a 'neurotypical' offender. It smacks of a show trial and of the US Government being hugely embarassed by their own lack of decent security, and embarassing the US Government tends to bring out their vindictive streak in pretty short order.


----------



## futha (Jul 31, 2009)

Isn't 70 years the max he could get though? It will probably be much less. Still its well over the top. As someone said you could rape and even kill and get less than that!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jul 31, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> While we're on the subject, does anybody find themselves getting a bit annoyed that being a bit odd is now considered a medical condition?  There's nothing wrong with most people diagnosed with ASD these days that a few nights out of the house and a good shagging wouldn't fix


----------



## purplex (Jul 31, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> As an Aspie myself, I can see how his condition might have affected his perception of his actions and the possible consequences thereof. Like amany Aspies and autistic people, when I'm really interested in a subject I tend to get very, very interested, thus I can end up knowing an awful lot more than some folk about particular subjects and find myself almost fixated on finding more information. If Gary MacKinnon was affected in terms of becoming fixated on his chosen subject, and became fixated enough to either brush off or simply not consider that breaking into US computer systems was going to carry with it all manner of consequences for him, then perhaps this could be used as a partial defence.



If there is any supporting evidence that he was in fact a ufo enthusiast rather than a part time hacker using his professional knowledge to break into computer systems for fun.
You see, I've heard this defence that he was a ufo enthusiast and I have to say I am highly sceptical because there has been no overwhelming evidence shown that that is what he was doing. Was he a member of any ufo societies? Was he active on any forums? Did he have a library of books? Or is it as I suspect just a fabrication to hide the fact and provide justification for the fact he was a grown man living out his war games fantasies.
He was breaking into military computer systems run by a foreign government, he should be tried in that land under their laws, you would have to be stupid to think you can somehow get away with that.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 31, 2009)

purplex said:


> If there is any supporting evidence that he was in fact a ufo enthusiast rather than a part time hacker using his professional knowledge to break into computer systems for fun.
> You see, I've heard this defence that he was a ufo enthusiast and I have to say I am highly sceptical because there has been no overwhelming evidence shown that that is what he was doing. Was he a member of any ufo societies? Was he active on any forums? Did he have a library of books? Or is it as I suspect just a fabrication to hide the fact and provide justification for the fact he was a grown man living out his war games fantasies.
> He was breaking into military computer systems run by a foreign government, he should be tried in that land under their laws, you would have to be stupid to think you can somehow get away with that.



You seem to be missing out on the fact that Aspie's can become very fixated on things, sometimes to the point where it can adversely affect an Aspie's judgement, including the judgment of risks and consequences.

You don't need to be a card-carrying UFO enthusiast with an extensive library or be a member of any UFO groups to become fixated with UFO's, you know, especially if you're an Aspie. He could just as easily have acquired a fixation on any other subject that didn't involve hacking computers and would not have brought him into conflict with the law. As it is, he did, and is thus being labelled a criminal rather than an oddball or obsessive.

I doubt very much that Gary MacKinnon is 'stupid' either, as we Aspie's can, despite our social problems, very often turn out to be as bright as anyone else, if not brighter. I'm much more inclined to think that he bacame fixated on UFO's and this affected his judgement of the potential consequences.


----------



## purplex (Jul 31, 2009)

All we know for sure is that he hacked into those systems. 
Lots of people get deep and obsessive about hobbies but I believe his hobby was hacking and not ufos and nothing has been shown to lead me to think otherwise.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 31, 2009)

purplex said:


> All we know for sure is that he hacked into those systems.
> Lots of people get deep and obsessive about hobbies but I believe his hobby was hacking and not ufos and nothing has been shown to lead me to think otherwise.



Real hackers don't use easily available programs to sniff for blank passwords.

No challenge there.


----------



## purplex (Jul 31, 2009)

8ball said:


> Real hackers don't use easily available programs to sniff for blank passwords.
> 
> No challenge there.



Of course, they'll go about it the hard way every time. 

from wiki 
_
"In common usage, a hacker is a person who breaks into computers, usually by gaining access to administrative controls."_

That he even sought out US government computer systems to hack into at all is part of the challenge. He sought them out and he broke into them gaining root level access. What he did then is highly irrelevant.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 31, 2009)

purplex said:


> Of course, they'll go about it the hard way every time.
> 
> from wiki
> _
> ...



I'd have thought, given that the US Government is at the centre of a lot of UFO stuff, that hacking the US computers would have seemed, to him, to be one of the more effective things he could have done to gain information. Thus making your suggestion that he was hacking those computers for the sheer fun of it redundant.

And what he did after he had gained access is highly relevent. Did he go public with what he found? Did he attempt to seel information to the highest bidder? Did he attempt any sort of blackmail? The answer to all three of those questions is, IIRC, no.

Hence, his actions after having broken into the computer system would be of great relevence, especially in the event of his having to offer mitigating circumstances for his actions.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 31, 2009)

purplex said:


> O
> from wiki
> _
> "In common usage, a hacker is a person who breaks into computers, usually by gaining access to administrative controls."_



Administrative controls is where you can have the most fun.  Though just getting in and then looking at some documents is the mark of someone who is after information rather than hacking for fun.  Assuming what he has said about what he was doing is accurate, obviously.

The term 'hacker' covers a myriad of different sorts with different agendas, but those who take the easy way in and then don't do much else in there are generally after information and so either loonspuds or they are looking for criminal opportunities.


----------



## purplex (Aug 1, 2009)

8ball said:


> Administrative controls is where you can have the most fun.  Though just getting in and then looking at some documents is the mark of someone who is after information rather than hacking for fun.  Assuming what he has said about what he was doing is accurate, obviously.
> 
> The term 'hacker' covers a myriad of different sorts with different agendas, but those who take the easy way in and then don't do much else in there are generally after information and so either loonspuds or they are looking for criminal opportunities.



We only have his word on what he was getting up to, it is clear these werent well monitored or secured systems, he is yet to convince me he is telling the truth. All we know is he deliberately broke into those systems.


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 1, 2009)

purplex said:


> We only have his word on what he was getting up to, it is clear these werent well monitored or secured systems, he is yet to convince me he is telling the truth. All we know is he deliberately broke into those systems.



You have heard of the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' haven't you?

It's not for Gary McKinnon to prove his innocence of the charges against him, it's for the prosecution to prove his guilt. And don't you think that a potential sentence of 60-70 years for hacking is just a tad excessive, especially when, as far as we know, no serious damage, if any, was done? And his Asperger's Syndriome, depending upon the influence it almost certainly will have had on his actions, is certainly a mitigating circumstance.


----------



## Callum91 (Aug 1, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> While we're on the subject, does anybody find themselves getting a bit annoyed that being a bit odd is now considered a medical condition?  There's nothing wrong with most people diagnosed with ASD these days that a few nights out of the house and a good shagging wouldn't fix



He's not '' a bit odd '' though is he , he has a mental health problem and it should be taken into consideration.


----------



## starfish (Aug 1, 2009)

Why are we even considering extraditing someone to a country that still has the death penalty. Whatever happened to "our special relationship".

bleurgh.


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 1, 2009)

starfish said:


> Why are we even considering extraditing someone to a country that still has the death penalty. Whatever happened to "our special relationship".
> 
> bleurgh.



Because, legally, we can only refuse extradition point blank if a defendant is likely to face the death penalty, Gary McKinnon isn't facing execution, just a wildly excessive stretch. 

And the 'special relationship' seems to have become special only when the Americans want something.


----------



## starfish (Aug 1, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Because, legally, we can only refuse extradition point blank if a defendant is likely to face the death penalty, Gary McKinnon isn't facing execution, just a wildly excessive stretch.
> 
> And the 'special relationship' seems to have become special only when the Americans want something.



Ah, didnt know that. Still we wouldnt send him to Saudi if he was only facing 40 years.

That was my thinking.


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 1, 2009)

starfish said:


> Ah, didnt know that. Still we wouldnt send him to Saudi if he was only facing 40 years.
> 
> That was my thinking.



We probably wouldn't send him anywhere else, but the 'special relationship' means that we end up doing, most of the time anyway, what the Americans want and occasionally get the odd crumb or two in return.


----------



## starfish (Aug 1, 2009)

Unfortunately thats the truth.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 1, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> We probably wouldn't send him anywhere else, but the 'special relationship' means that we end up doing, most of the time anyway, what the Americans want and occasionally get the odd crumb or two in return.





Are you Canadian?


----------



## starfish (Aug 1, 2009)

^^

I dont think he is, he was replying to me.

Ah just remembered you are


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 1, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> Are you Canadian?



Nah, I'm a Brit.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 1, 2009)

The only 'special relationship' that country has outside of the Daily Mail world is not with the UK. It's with that curious little place 'round the coast from Egypt. If you think otherwise I'm afraid you haven't been taking your anti-propaganda pills.

Fwiw, my thoughts on this are that if he wasn't extradited no jury in this country would convict him, and the US authorities will be aware of that.

Secondly. it's absolutely batshit  - and I suspect a breach of human rights (and I hope it will go to the European court) - for someone brought up in this society, this legal  culture and who committed an offence from within this country, to be exposed to the surreal sentencing tariffs of the USA - it's a country where it's acceptable to imprison, per head of population, 10 times the European average (2 million citizens/7% of the population). Part of that is because of the length of tariffs - 40 years?

Better still this gets tried in the UK and the jury does a Clive Ponting.


----------



## purplex (Aug 1, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> You have heard of the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' haven't you?
> 
> It's not for Gary McKinnon to prove his innocence of the charges against him, it's for the prosecution to prove his guilt. And don't you think that a potential sentence of 60-70 years for hacking is just a tad excessive, especially when, as far as we know, no serious damage, if any, was done? And his Asperger's Syndriome, depending upon the influence it almost certainly will have had on his actions, is certainly a mitigating circumstance.



he's fucking admitted it.
Don't you think hacking into private computer systems is a tad cuntish, or is that an acceptable pastime for a grown man in your world? maybe we should give him a telling off and send him to bed early.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 1, 2009)

purplex said:


> We only have his word on what he was getting up to, it is clear these werent well monitored or secured systems, he is yet to convince me he is telling the truth. All we know is he deliberately broke into those systems.



Yeah, you have a point in that we only seem to have his word to go on so far.  I'd still prefer to see something more substantial in justifying things from the Yanks before sending him to a country with that kind of 'justice system', though.

I'm probably just going with my gut in that he has a bit of an Aspie look about him and being extremely honest is one of the traits.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 1, 2009)

I don't see the proposal that he has Aspergers syndrome makes any difference really. There are people in the USA with Aspergers, they know how to deal with it. 

Plus I am a bit suspicious as he was only recently diagnosed.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 1, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I don't see the proposal that he has Aspergers syndrome makes any difference really. There are people in the USA with Aspergers, they know how to deal with it.
> 
> Plus I am a bit suspicious as he was only recently diagnosed.



Me too.

My suspicious side leads me to think that he may have learned the symptoms and found a doctor to classify him with a mild case.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 1, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I don't see the proposal that he has Aspergers syndrome makes any difference really.



Me neither especially.  I think it's mainly being used to 'explain' his actions to dumb Americans who think anyone who breaks into their 'highly secure' <snigger> systems must be a terrrrrrst.



weltweit said:


> There are people in the USA with Aspergers, they know how to deal with it.



Really?  You think they have better support or a more Aspie-friendly culture?  I thank my lucky stars I wasn't born in the States and had to go to their school system . . .



weltweit said:


> Plus I am a bit suspicious as he was only recently diagnosed.



Yes, that's reasonable.  I think someone probably spotted some traits and thought it might help his case.


----------



## New Deal Scanda (Aug 1, 2009)

Why can't he be sentenced here and serve in prison here?

He committed the crime in the UK and is a citizen here. 

USA can f**k off... It is only $800,000 after all what they allege the damage he caused... thats like one missile dropped in Iraq?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 1, 2009)

purplex said:


> All we know for sure is that he hacked into those systems.
> Lots of people get deep and obsessive about hobbies but I believe his hobby was hacking and not ufos and nothing has been shown to lead me to think otherwise.


Not the fact he was finally caught when accessing photos in UFO folders on the NASA site?


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 1, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Not the fact he was finally caught when accessing photos in UFO folders on the NASA site?



Maybe leaving a note that says “US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days... It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year... I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels.” that something to do with it.

The Americans became very, very paranoid after September 11.


----------



## New Deal Scanda (Aug 1, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> Maybe leaving a note that says “US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days... It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year... I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels.” that something to do with it.
> 
> The Americans became very, very paranoid after September 11.


Funny, they still voted the guy in...


----------



## Azrael (Aug 2, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Secondly. it's absolutely batshit  - and I suspect a breach of human rights (and I hope it will go to the European court) - for someone brought up in this society, this legal  culture and who committed an offence from within this country, to be exposed to the surreal sentencing tariffs of the USA - it's a country where it's acceptable to imprison, per head of population, 10 times the European average (2 million citizens/7% of the population). Part of that is because of the length of tariffs - 40 years?


According to the _New York Times_, Mr McKinnon is likely to face no more than ten years. I've read elsewhere that federal sentencing guidelines would be from six months to six years, although I've not been able to check it. I suspect the silly 70 years figure is a theoretical maximum his lawyers have dug up to dupe anti-American elements of the British press. 

I've no way of knowing if Mr McKinnon's Asperger's Syndrome is genuine, but even if it is, I don't see how it's a bar to extradition, since it doesn't automatically remove criminal responsibility. The whole story is a muddle that various agendas have latched onto. Mr McKinnon would still have been extradited under the old treaty as there's clearly a _prima facie_ case against him, so that argument is by the by here. If people are saying that people with Asperger's Syndrome are unfit to stand trial, let's have detailed proposals. Right now, it's emotive story for the silly season, and little more.  

Incidentally, I find the suggestion that it's a breech of human rights to be tried by jury in the home of the Bill of Rights a curious one.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Incidentally, I find the suggestion that it's a breech of human rights to be tried by jury in the home of the Bill of Rights a curious one.



I take it you're being ironic/sarcastic?


----------



## Azrael (Aug 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> I take it you're being ironic/sarcastic?


Clearly, but I'm not. Last time I checked, the USA is the home of the Bill of Rights, and absent a plea agreement Mr McKinnon will be tried by a jury. Many say his jury will be hopelessly biased. Perhaps, but the verdict has to be unanimous, and _voir dire_ should produce at least some reasonable jurors. I doubt a British jury would be a paragon of fairness if we had a "yank" in the dock. 

Which of Mr McKinnon's human rights do you think are being violated?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> According to the _New York Times_, Mr McKinnon is likely to face no more than ten years. I've read elsewhere that federal sentencing guidelines would be from six months to six years, although I've not been able to check it. I suspect the silly 70 years figure is a theoretical maximum his lawyers have dug up to dupe anti-American elements of the British press.


Once he's within juristiction, they can do whatever the hell they like with him. If Bush were still President, who would bet against him being 'declared' an enemy combatant; all it takes is for the President to sign another Exeutive Order. Nothing is fixed, nothing is certain - if someone can make political capital out of him, they will.

By all means favour Wired.com for your legal analysis, but most probably wouldn't.

Fwiw, McKinnon has offered to go to the USA voluntarily if the Government backed up their offer of a sentencing deal in writing, they won't.


Azrael said:


> Incidentally, I find the suggestion that it's a breech of human rights to be tried by jury in the home of the Bill of Rights a curious one.


The USA has not signed any international human rights treaties, and is exempt - as you would expect of a country that detains its own citizens indefinitely without charge or trial (for example Jose Padilla).

 A 'bill of rights' - whether the  English, the French, the later America version, or another - all trace their history to, at least, the Magna Carta. The USA is not the "home" of any bill of rights.


----------



## Azrael (Aug 2, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Once he's within juristiction, they can do whatever the hell they like with him. If Bush were still President, who would bet against him being 'declared' an enemy combatant; all it takes is for the President to sign another Exeutive Order. Nothing is fixed, nothing is certain - if someone can make political capital out of him, they will.


What do you base this on? Is there a single instance of a British citizen being extradited on criminal charges, declared an "enemy combatant" on the US mainland, and spirited away to Guantanamo? (This is academic, since Mr Bush isn't president.) 

We had all this with the "Natwest three". We were told they'd be shackled, forced to replace their pinstripes with those orange romper suits US jails are so fond of, and thrown into a Texan dungeon for years before trial. In reality they were bailed and allowed to work while they organised their defence. To cap it off they arranged a plea bargain and pled guilty. 

Which "international human rights" treaties are you referring to? Most of these pious documents bear signatures from dictatorships and have no practical effect. To my knowledge none of them mention trial by jury. 

The USA's Bill of Rights was written by American James Madison. It might trace its history to the Magna Carta  (which is mainly concerned with fishing rights and land disputes) and lifts parts of the English Bill of Rights verbatim, but it's a product of the USA. 

Sensible criticism of disgraces like José Padilla's treatment is undermined by wild claims that Mr McKinnon is gulag bound, or that the USA is some kind of human rights pariah.


----------



## Azrael (Aug 2, 2009)

Oh, and I favoured the _New York Times_ for my legal analysis, specifically saying that I couldn't corroborate _Wired_'s claim. Since the BBC and the rest of the British press seem to be taking the 60/70 year claims at face value, I think that's reasonable enough.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Clearly, but I'm not. Last time I checked, the USA is the home of the Bill of Rights, and absent a plea agreement Mr McKinnon will be tried by a jury. Many say his jury will be hopelessly biased. Perhaps, but the verdict has to be unanimous, and _voir dire_ should produce at least some reasonable jurors. I doubt a British jury would be a paragon of fairness if we had a "yank" in the dock.
> 
> Which of Mr McKinnon's human rights do you think are being violated?



I never said any were abused. I'm simply chuckling at your seeming belief that the USA somehow guarantees anyone their human rights simply because it is the home of a 'Bill of Rights'. I reckon there's a few million people who could point out the silliness of your touching and childlike belief as being naive in the extreme.

On a side note, Harriet Harman this morning said that it was right he was extradited because the effects of hios 'crime' were felt in the US not Britain. That's a rather interesting line, after all, in the ridiculously unlikely scenario, that Blair is tried for war crimes I wonder if Harman will apply the same 'logic' there too?


----------



## Azrael (Aug 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> I never said any were abused. I'm simply chuckling at your seeming belief that the USA somehow guarantees anyone their human rights simply because it is the home of a 'Bill of Rights'. I reckon there's a few million people who could point out the silliness of your touching and childlike belief as being naive in the extreme.


Where's this naive faith in the US justice system? Rejecting the absurd suggestion that it's a "breach of human rights" to be tried in the USA is entirely different to saying their system is infallible. Mr McKinnon is guaranteed certain fundamental rights. Since we're flawed creatures they might fail him, but he's facing as fair a trial as he would anywhere under similar circumstances. 

As for whether Mr McKinnon should be extradited or tried here, he damaged US systems on the US mainland. He might have been physically sitting in his flat, but the act was committed within US jurisdiction, and it's right they try him. 

This whole non-story fails to address any wider issue. People who want a _prima facie_ burden for extradition should find a case where the accused hasn't admitted the crime; people who raise Mr McKinnon's Asperger's Syndrome should explain exactly what policy they want adopted when the courts are faced with a sufferer. What would you have done with this hacking enthusiast?


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Where's this naive faith in the US justice system? Rejecting the absurd suggestion that it's a "breach of human rights" to be tried in the USA is entirely different to saying their system is infallible. Mr McKinnon is guaranteed certain fundamental rights. Since we're flawed creatures they might fail him, but he's facing as fair a trial as he would anywhere under similar circumstances.
> 
> As for whether Mr McKinnon should be extradited or tried here, he damaged US systems on the US mainland. He might have been physically sitting in his flat, but the act was committed within US jurisdiction, and it's right they try him.
> 
> This whole non-story fails to address any wider issue. People who want a _prima facie_ burden for extradition should find a case where the accused hasn't admitted the crime; people who raise Mr McKinnon's Asperger's Syndrome should explain exactly what policy they want adopted when the courts are faced with a sufferer. What would you have done with this hacking enthusiast?



The crime was committed in this country, like it or not that's a physical and geographical fact. You can't start to bend rules by talking about where the effects would be felt. By your logic Salman Rushdie should have been tried in Iran as that is where the effects of his shite book were felt. The 'unfairness' also lies in the fact that the US refuses to extradite it's own citizens if it doesn't deem it is in their interests. I'm not convinced that McKinnon will automatically be treated badly, but neither do I have your childlike faith he will be treated well.


----------



## Azrael (Aug 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> The crime was committed in this country, like it or not that's a physical and geographical fact. You can't start to bend rules by talking about where the effects would be felt. By your logic Salman Rushdie should have been tried in Iran as that is where the effects of his shite book were felt. The 'unfairness' also lies in the fact that the US refuses to extradite it's own citizens if it doesn't deem it is in their interests. I'm not convinced that McKinnon will automatically be treated badly, but neither do I have your childlike faith he will be treated well.


Mr McKinnon damaged US property remotely: that damage occurred within US borders even if he wasn't. Either country could prosecute him, but the USA is best since they've suffered the consequences of his actions. If a person had to be physically present in a country to commit a crime there, then a man could order the murder of another man in foreign parts and be safe from extradition!  

Your imaginative comparison with Mr Rushdie falls down since he didn't commit any direct act against Iran, and his "crime" in Iran isn't recongised as such by Britain. Plus Iran is void of basic judicial safeguards. 

Mr McKinnon might be treated badly. So might any prisoner we send abroad. Either we extradite or we don't. If we do, then the USA has given all reasonable guarantees, and clearly has an open and independent justice system. The treaty is unfair, but no worse than the nasty EU arrest warrant. Yet the Lib Dems support that, and little fuss is made in general. Odd. (So far as I know the USA extradites if a judge finds probable cause. If we didn't want the unfairness, we shouldn't have signed up to the treaty.) 

As I asked above, what would you do with Mr McKinnon?


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Mr McKinnon damaged US property remotely: that damage occurred within US borders even if he wasn't. Either country could prosecute him, but the USA is best since they've suffered the consequences of his actions. If a person had to be physically present in a country to commit a crime there, then a man could order the murder of another man in foreign parts and be safe from extradition!
> 
> Your imaginative comparison with Mr Rushdie falls down since he didn't commit any direct act against Iran, and his "crime" in Iran isn't recongised as such by Britain. Plus Iran is void of basic judicial safeguards.
> 
> ...



Nope, it is not imaginative at all. Rushdie committed these crimes remotely too, however in this case neither the US nor UK care about basic human rights. I don't think Rushdie did anything but write a criminally shite book, however following Harmans (NOT MINE) and seemingly your logic he could, indeed had we an extraditions agreement with Iran, should have extradited. 

He committed the crime here, which you clearly accept, fact, no amount of obfuscation about where it's effects took place can change that. I'd try him here, not too difficult really. 

Of course we shouldn't have signed upto the treaty.


----------



## Azrael (Aug 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> He committed the crime here, which you clearly accept, fact, no amount of obfuscation about where it's effects took place can change that. I'd try him here, not too difficult really.


Where's this "obfuscation"? If we're to limit jurisdiction to where a criminal is physically then all manner of remote crime is possible. I'm not clear what moral principle this is based on, but it doesn't seem a weighty one (if it even exists). 

I'm afraid the spurious Rushdie comparison remains spurious. Mr Rushdie didn't directly damage Iranian property, or, to my knowledge, incite people to overthrow them. At most he's guilty of indirect harm of a kind our law doesn't recognise. The comparison has superficial resemblance at best, but no substance. 

I don't think people should be extradited without a _prima facie_ case (or something similar), but I wouldn't call being sent to stand jury trial a violation of a "basic human right", especially since no one is even denying that Mr McKinnon committed the act in question.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Where's this "obfuscation"? If we're to limit jurisdiction to where a criminal is physically then all manner of remote crime is possible. I'm not clear what moral principle this is based on, but it doesn't seem a weighty one (if it even exists).
> 
> I'm afraid the spurious Rushdie comparison remains spurious. Mr Rushdie didn't directly damage Iranian property, or, to my knowledge, incite people to overthrow them. At most he's guilty of indirect harm of a kind our law doesn't recognise. The comparison has superficial resemblance at best, but no substance.
> 
> I don't think people should be extradited without a _prima facie_ case (or something similar), but I wouldn't call being sent to stand jury trial a violation of a "basic human right", especially since no one is even denying that Mr McKinnon committed the act in question.



I am not opposed to extradition re remote or non remote crime. I am however in this instance merely pointing out that McKinnon broke the law here, as such he should be tried here. 

Given the current state of America's attitude towards 'security' I am not convinced he would receive a fair trial. That the British govet is simply taking the word of people who over the past few years have clearly demonstrated their lack of commitment to observing even the most basic human rights of people not even charged i'm a tad sceptical about this commitment. As such why should he be extradited if it's not entirely acceptedn he would be tried fairly. Neither, however, do I believe simple extradition in this or other cases is a de facto sign of denying human rights. 

Rushdie committed an act against Iranian law. That we might not recognise it doesn't refute that point. Neither going by your view does it matter where he did it. McKinnon broke the law here, simply try him here.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 2, 2009)

Can we have each and every fucktard oirish American who conspired to raise money for the IRA extradited to the UK then?


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 2, 2009)

I see Gary's biggest hurdle to having a fair trial is going to be the media coverage.

This really isn't a big story over here yet.  Earlier, when I googled for more information, all I seem to be getting is the British slant on this story.  Thanks to Azrael, I've finally been able to read something from American and it confirmed the reports I've seen on TV.  It's not going to be a 60 year sentence.  Someone is playing you.

So, he goes to America.  And, in true British media style, the UK is going to put this entire episode front and center.  On every television and newspaper we will read....Britian thinks that the US court system is bias, the US system is unable to care for someone with a mild cause of whatever, big bad Awerica will tweet him bad, what did I miss....

The US public is going to hate you.  There will be a backlash against the British. Seriously, you are not going to get a fair media trail if you have the attitude that the US is some backward country.  This will get their collective backs up.

I don't think he is going to get a light sentence.  Right now, cyber crimes are something that Obama is after.  I think he will get a hefty sentence to deter others.  A precedent has to be set for anyone hacking a US system on US soil.  They have had very strict rules governing servers in that country and are super paranoid.  Right now, we have China hacking all over the world.  It was the Canadians who traced the hacks on the Tibet sites back to China.  Didn't they just get an Australian site a couple of days ago?  For them, the hack is an attack that occurred on US soil.  Someone attacked and someone is responsible.  

Btw, sorry to hear about the deportation rules.  It sucks.  Ours are probably a lot worse.  The Americans usually get what they want.  We got used to it a while ago.  I suppose you are just learning about it.  My condolences.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Aug 2, 2009)

has anyone mentioned the Jon Ronson articles yet?

This is the most recent one, in todays _Observer_


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 2, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> has anyone mentioned the Jon Ronson articles yet?
> 
> This is the most recent one, in todays _Observer_



Excellent articles.  Thanks.

Personally, I think he should be awarded a prize for exposing they system flaws.  Hackers of the world, unite!!!

Sadly, this case will be fought on the side of the evils of hacking other systems.  Although I will always side with the hacker, this is about security.  National security is very much on the minds of the Americans.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 2, 2009)

On the brighter side, has anyone considered that fact that he may well be spending his jail time in the UK?  

I'm sure that everyone here will agree that spending 7-10 years in a British jail is better than in a US jail.  After all, there is no forced sex, abuse of mentally ill or any other of the ills that seem to permeate the US system.  Your jails are a model of civility, right?


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Aug 2, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> I see Gary's biggest hurdle to having a fair trial is going to be the media coverage...


I agree that media coverage is potentially influential.

Unfortunately, my points have been ignored.

I've tried to tell Gary's campaign that 'preaching to the choir' of the British public via the British media isn't really going to make much difference.

Telling British people that the extradition treaty is one-sided and unfair will have no impact.

As things stand, reassuring the British public through the British media that Gary is harmless geeky alien hunter, when it's the American public who want to lock him up and throw away the key is pointless.

From what I've read online, it's the Americans who don't have a clue what it's really all about, and it's the Americans who want to lock him up and throw away the key - but Gary's media campaign is really badly managed, he's rarely giving interviews, and when he does it's to the British domestic media that won't have any hope of swaying American public opinion.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Aug 2, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> On the brighter side, has anyone considered that fact that he may well be spending his jail time in the UK?
> 
> I'm sure that everyone here will agree that spending 7-10 years in a British jail is better than in a US jail.  After all, there is no forced sex, abuse of mentally ill or any other of the ills that seem to permeate the US system.  Your jails are a model of civility, right?


Spring-peeper, I wouldn't like to comment about about comparisons between US and UK jails in general.  

However, imagine the two different scenarios:

* a British subject serving a jail sentence in a British jail, surrounded by mostly British subjects. He's been found guilty of some random computer geekery hacking US military and NASA computer systems.

* a foreign person serving a jail sentence in a US jail, surrounded by American citizens and also by American prison wardens who consider themselves to be in positions of authority in general, but also in positions of authority (potential abuse) above inmates, and especially above foreigners convicted of offences that amount to treason against their country in a post 9/11 security conscious twitchy nation.

Two difference scenarios altogether.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 2, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I agree that media coverage is potentially influential.
> 
> Unfortunately, my points have been ignored.



I don't think that your points were so much ignored, but melding into other posts.

I did a quick google check and I have many of the qualities that were listed as symptons(?).  I'm sure that I could get myself classified - if I thought that it would save my life (as Gary seems to think, imo).

I'm not saying that he is not suffering from this, but it's just a little suspicious that he has just got diagnosed -amidst of the massive public relations, oh-look-at-me-i'm-special stuff I keep reading about.

Even mentally disabled have to take responsibility for their actions.

This is not a lack of sympathy for those suffering, just a reality check.



> I've tried to tell Gary's campaign that 'preaching to the choir' of the British public via the British media isn't really going to make much difference.
> 
> Telling British people that the extradition treaty is one-sided and unfair will have no impact.
> 
> As things stand, reassuring the British public through the British media that Gary is harmless geeky alien hunter, when it's the American public who want to lock him up and throw away the key is pointless.



He will be tried in America.  Going over there with the attitude I've seen on this board is just going to anger the US public.  They don't take kindly to foreigners telling them their system is wrong. 



> From what I've read online, it's the Americans who don't have a clue what it's really all about, and it's the Americans who want to lock him up and throw away the key - but Gary's media campaign is really badly managed, he's rarely giving interviews, and when he does it's to the British domestic media that won't have any hope of swaying American public opinion.



Sadly, this is more about people hacking systems than it is about the rights of the hacker.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 2, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Spring-peeper, I wouldn't like to comment about about comparisons between US and UK jails in general.
> 
> However, imagine the two different scenarios:
> 
> ...



Considering the fact that he will probably be spending his time is British jails, not the US ones, why are you worrying about how he will be treated?

Are your British jails so much better than the US ones?  How ever did you solve the problem of abusive guards?  Unwanted sex?  

How do you know how British citizens are treated in US jails, btw?


----------



## Meltingpot (Aug 2, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> Considering the fact that he will probably be spending his time is British jails, not the US ones, why are you worrying about how he will be treated?
> 
> Are your British jails so much better than the US ones?



I think they are, so far anyway. Wackenhut has a "get tough" policy on the prisoners in its jails, as does Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona who's famous for precisely that (he told Ruby Wax that "this isn't a hotel, it's a jail. Do you think I should put chocolates on the pillows"?).

@upsidedownwalrus; good point.


----------



## Azrael (Aug 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Given the current state of America's attitude towards 'security' I am not convinced he would receive a fair trial.


This is a real concern, but since there's no chance of him being spirited off to Guantanamo, and Mr McKinnon's already turned down a plea bargain, it comes down to the jury. (Or juries, if he's prosecuted in both New Jersey and Virginia.) If Mr McKinnon is properly represented I don't see it as grounds for refusing extradition. No system is perfect. 

So far as I'm aware we don't extradite unless the alleged offence is a crime in Britain, but I'm happy to be corrected by a lawyer. Even if we did, Mr Rushdie would have to have published his book in Iran to be eligible for extradition. Did he? And if he did, he wouldn't have got a fair trial. The situation just isn't comparable. 

If there's no moral reason why Mr McKinnon should be tried here, let the USA have him. This aspect of the case hasn't aroused much legal controversy. The strict requirement you demand is unjust in its literalism. 


spring-peeper said:


> The US public is going to hate you.  There will be a backlash against the British. Seriously, you are not going to get a fair media trail if you have the attitude that the US is some backward country.  This will get their collective backs up.


Very sensible post, and you're right on the money here. By the by, given the authoritarian shambles of our own system, Britain's in no position to lecture the US about criminal justice, but that aside, Mr McKinnon's case has brought out the worst tribalism this side of the pond, with the country taking the side of a self-confessed hacker because he's "one of ours". We should be supporting justice. 

The noisy campaign could well end up hurting Mr McKinnon for the reasons you give. As ever with these things, I doubt genuine concern with mentally disabled criminals is motive for many people. If it were, there's thousands here in Britain who need their concern. This is about sticking it to America, and if nothing else, it's embarrassing. 

Mr McKinnon will doubtless get a decent lawyer now he's _cause célèbre_, and I doubt America is going to brutalise him pre-trial, if only to avoid diplomatic trouble. If Mr McKinnon's version of events is true, I have every sympathy, and prison in either country would be wrong and pointless. But the prosecution's version is also credible. A court has to decide between the competing accounts, and if we have extradition, I see no reason why that court shouldn't be in the United States.


----------



## Azrael (Aug 2, 2009)

Meltingpot said:


> I think they are, so far anyway. Wackenhut has a "get tough" policy on the prisoners in its jails, as does Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona who's famous for precisely that (he told Ruby Wax that "this isn't a hotel, it's a jail. Do you think I should put chocolates on the pillows"?).
> 
> @upsidedownwalrus; good point.


Surely it varies by prison in both countries, and by the state in the USA? Since Sheriff Arpaio is in Arizona, and Mr McKinnon isn't, or likely to be, the lawman's curious take on criminal justice is beside the point. 

We used to have gaolhouse brutality licked in Britain by enforcing the separate system, where prisoners were forbidden to talk or fraternise with one another. (It was imported from a model penitentiary in Pennsylvania, coincidentally.) It was of course swept away for being too harsh, by idealistic reformers who didn't consider that there was a reason for the harshness, and without it, something worse would emerge. The USA clearly has some godawful lock-ups, but our squalid and brutal warehouses are nothing to boast about.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 3, 2009)

Meltingpot said:


> I think they are, so far anyway. Wackenhut has a "get tough" policy on the prisoners in its jails, as does Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona who's famous for precisely that (he told Ruby Wax that "this isn't a hotel, it's a jail. Do you think I should put chocolates on the pillows"?).



You are playing on stereo-types.  Please try not to do this.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 3, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> On the brighter side, has anyone considered that fact that he may well be spending his jail time in the UK?
> 
> I'm sure that everyone here will agree that spending 7-10 years in a British jail is better than in a US jail.  After all, there is no forced sex, abuse of mentally ill or any other of the ills that seem to permeate the US system.  Your jails are a model of civility, right?



If you believe our papers, our jails are like spending time in a five star hotel.





Seriously though, prisons in the USA do sound grimmer.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 3, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> Excellent articles.  Thanks.
> 
> Personally, I think he should be awarded a prize for exposing they system flaws.  Hackers of the world, unite!!!
> 
> Sadly, this case will be fought on the side of the evils of hacking other systems.  Although I will always side with the hacker, this is about security.  National security is very much on the minds of the Americans.



What does bug me though is why the USA had such an easy-to-hack National Security system in the first place.  Surely it's the idiots who set it up who should be for the high jump?


----------



## aylee (Aug 3, 2009)

Azrael said:


> So far as I'm aware we don't extradite unless the alleged offence is a crime in Britain, but I'm happy to be corrected by a lawyer.



You are correct.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 3, 2009)

aylee said:


> You are correct.



And blasphemy is a crime in this country. Wrongly though imho.


----------



## Meltingpot (Aug 3, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> You are playing on stereo-types.  Please try not to do this.



I do know a bit about this. One of my heroes is Bo Lozoff, who works with prisoners in the US and reveals the details on his website.

http://www.humankindness.org

You know what "bus time" is?


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 3, 2009)

Meltingpot said:


> I do know a bit about this. One of my heroes is Bo Lozoff, who works with prisoners in the US and reveals the details on his website.
> 
> http://www.humankindness.org




It looks like an interesting project, but I couldn't seem to find any info on the US prison system.




> You know what "bus time" is?



Time spent on a bus 

What does it mean?


----------



## 8den (Aug 3, 2009)

There are several things dishonest about the campaign. 

Hacking the pentagon for any reason? Massively stupid. 

Hacking the pentagon in the weeks after 911? Beyond retarded. 

Mc Kinnon, was offered a deal that would have seen him out of prison and home already. He declined the deal, and told the US representative, that;



> In return, Gary offered a somewhat hare-brained counter deal, via a Virginia public defender. "I made a sort of veiled threat to them. I said, 'You know the places I've been, so you know the stuff I've seen' kind of thing." He pauses and blushes slightly. "That didn't work."



Really? They offer you three to five, and you respond with a threat, and you think that this going to endear yourself to them? Of course they're going to go after him with everything they've got after that. 

Finally this "70 years" bollocks, that not the automatic sentence, that's the maximum sentence, and that kind of hysterical bullshit isn't honest. 

Was anyone here up in arms when those three bankers got extradited?


----------



## Meltingpot (Aug 3, 2009)

When you're between jails, you don't have the same rights as prisoners do when they're in prison. So awkward prisoners are deliberately moved around a lot, often in chains, and denied bathroom breaks etc. It's a form of punishment designed to enforce compliance with the system.

Having said that, you're probably right about this episode bringing out everyone on Urban's low view of America in general. If there ever was a special relationship between our two countries, it's long dead and buried.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 3, 2009)

Meltingpot said:


> If there ever was a special relationship between our two countries, it's long dead and buried.



Honesty is good.  That the bitch should hate the Daddy is how things should be.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 3, 2009)

Meltingpot said:


> When you're between jails, you don't have the same rights as prisoners do when they're in prison. So awkward prisoners are deliberately moved around a lot often in chains and denied bathroom breaks etc. It's a form of punishment designed to enforce compliance with the system.



ah - thanks.

I guess that Gary had better behave himself, then.  No?



> Having saidf that, you're probably right about this episode bringing out everyone on Urban's low view of America in general. If there ever was a special relationship between our two countries, it's long dead and buried.



Politically, your relationship with the US is not dead and buried.  It's very much alive and is doing well.


----------



## Meltingpot (Aug 3, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> ah - thanks.
> 
> I guess that Gary had better behave himself, then.  No?



That's if you think he should be there in the first place.



spring-peeper said:


> Politically, your relationship with the US is not dead and buried.  It's very much alive and is doing well.



Beg to differ. It's been dead (or at least very one-sided) at least since Reagan invaded Grenada in 1983 without telling either Thatcher or anyone else in the British government. It's probably been true since Suez.

The US government doesn't value our custom or see us any differently from any other European country. Bob Dole made that clear when a British journalist asked him a question during the 1996 presidential elections. He replied; "No votes in Liverpool!" and then turned to someone else.

It's not been much better recently;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1535639/Britains-special-relationship-just-a-myth.html


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 3, 2009)

Meltingpot said:


> That's if you think he should be there in the first place.



That's for the courts to decide.



> Beg to differ. It's been dead (or at least very one-sided) at least since Reagan invaded Grenada in 1983 without telling either Thatcher or anyone else in the British government. It's probably been true since Suez.
> 
> The US government doesn't value our custom or see us any differently from any other European country. Bob Dole made that clear when a British journalist asked him a question during the 1996 presidential elections. He replied; "No votes in Liverpool!" and then turned to someone else.
> 
> ...



I see your link and add mine.  The UK-US Special Relationship: Myths and Reality



Sitting here in a country that is constantly being bullied by the States, I'd say that following them in Iraq, fighting hand-in-hand with the States in Afghanistan, and the entire banking situation, it looks like you are best buddies.

but we digress...


----------



## New Deal Scanda (Aug 3, 2009)

Lets not forget he could be killed and not spend much time in jail.

It is ironic how some people don't get deported here as they fear they will die going back to their country yet the authorities here are happy to dispose of this man and let america do whatever they want.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 3, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> That's for the courts to decide.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You seem to have a difficulty in understanding the differnce between a good friendship and an abusive relationship. The fact that the US lied time and time again over extraordinary rendition flights might indicate to even the most stubborn that this is a one-sided relationship.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 3, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> You seem to have a difficulty in understanding the differnce between a good friendship and an abusive relationship. The fact that the US lied time and time again over extraordinary rendition flights might indicate to even the most stubborn that this is a one-sided relationship.



You are probably right.

Canada has really excellent relationships with the US.  They would never do anything mean and nasty to us.

I just assumed that you treated you as nicely as they do us.


----------



## In Bloom (Aug 3, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> On the brighter side, has anyone considered that fact that he may well be spending his jail time in the UK?
> 
> I'm sure that everyone here will agree that spending 7-10 years in a British jail is better than in a US jail.  After all, there is no forced sex, abuse of mentally ill or any other of the ills that seem to permeate the US system.  Your jails are a model of civility, right?


Which country he serves time in is not exactly the issue here.  The argument is that he shouldn't be facing prison time at all for this, or at least that he should be charged with something sensible and proportionate instead of mental anti-"terrorist" charges as a form of revenge, which is more likely if he is tried in the UK.


----------



## Azrael (Aug 3, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> And blasphemy is a crime in this country. Wrongly though imho.


Worry not, the ancient common law offence of blasphemy was repealed in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, 2008. Even if it hadn't been, a court ruled in the 1980s that the English blasphemy law only applied to the Church of England. 

So far as I'm aware blasphemy is technically a crime in Scotland, but there's not been a prosecution since 1843, and it's almost certainly a dead-letter.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 3, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Worry not, the ancient common law offence of blasphemy was repealed in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, 2008. Even if it hadn't been, *a court ruled in the 1980s that the English blasphemy law only applied to the Church of England. *
> 
> So far as I'm aware blasphemy is technically a crime in Scotland, but there's not been a prosecution since 1843, and it's almost certainly a dead-letter.



Yeah I knew rthat, but, iirc, the CofE was given this status as it was the official established religion. As such that would mean Islam in Iran as it is the offocial religion. I agree that it's unlikely ever to be used here, it should be immediately repealed.

Dunno about up here on Scotland.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Which country he serves time in is not exactly the issue here.  The argument is that he shouldn't be facing prison time at all for this, or at least that he should be charged with something sensible and proportionate instead of mental anti-"terrorist" charges as a form of revenge, which is more likely if he is tried in the UK.



Yes, but the crime didn't happen on British soil, did it?   

It's all about the rights of a country to enforce laws that happen on their soil, not whether or not you agree with the laws.

It sucks, I know.  We have our own citizens being put on trial in the States for things that are not crimes here.  In one case, the gentleman didn't even step into their country. 

*shrugs*

That is the way things work.


----------



## Azrael (Aug 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Which country he serves time in is not exactly the issue here.  The argument is that he shouldn't be facing prison time at all for this, or at least that he should be charged with something sensible and proportionate instead of mental anti-"terrorist" charges as a form of revenge, which is more likely if he is tried in the UK.


I don't think Mr McKinnon does face mental anti-terrorist charges. According to this _New York Times_ report, "Mr. McKinnon ... was indicted on seven counts of computer fraud and related activity [in Virginia] and one such count in New Jersey." They sound perfectly sensible charges, and again, Britain is in no position to berate other countries for mental anti-terrorism legislation. 

Again from the _Times_: "[Mr McKinnon] faces a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine for each count of the indictment." The 70-year figure appears to have been cooked up by adding up the maximum sentences (although since that only comes to 40 years, his lawyers need to get their arithmetic checked). Is there the slightest chance he'll face this theoretical sentence? I doubt it.

So: Mr McKinnon rejects a reasonable plea bargain, tries to blackmail the US government with info he's nicked off their servers, and is diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome late in the day, once his legal avenues were near-exhausted. The diagnosis was made by Simon Baron-Cohen, so it could well be correct, but you can see why the US authorities may be suspicious, and it certainly isn't the black and white tale presented in the British press. (Most notably the _Daily Mail_. Guess a stopped clock is right twice a day, even on Urban.  )


----------



## JHE (Aug 3, 2009)

Boris Johnson discusses the McKinnon case in today's (Monday's) Telegraph.  He waves the flag a bit, but never mind.  The stupendously overpaid columnist is very sound on this.

Stop passing the buck on Gary McKinnon and let British common sense prevail


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2009)

'Harmless eccentric' seems to sum it up.

Time was that America and Britain used to be quite friendly places for harmless eccentrics.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 4, 2009)

8ball said:


> 'Harmless eccentric' seems to sum it up.
> 
> Time was that America and Britain used to be quite friendly places for harmless eccentrics.



And then, two planes flew into the Twin Towers and the world, as we knew it, changed.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 4, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> And then, two planes flew into the Twin Towers and the world, as we knew it, changed.



Yeah - all the more reason to thank Mr McKinnon.  If Al Qaeda had got there first, which isn't out of the question given how simple it appears to have been to hack, who knows what they could have done.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 4, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> Canada has really excellent relationships with the US.  They would never do anything mean and nasty to us.



Apart from pointing and laughing at Canada's Arctic claims...


----------



## Meltingpot (Aug 5, 2009)

8ball said:


> 'Harmless eccentric' seems to sum it up.
> 
> Time was that America and Britain used to be quite friendly places for harmless eccentrics.



Yeah, like this guy for instance;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 6, 2009)

ooops 

too much info sorry


----------



## Meltingpot (Aug 8, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Yeah - all the more reason to thank Mr McKinnon.  If Al Qaeda had got there first, which isn't out of the question given how simple it appears to have been to hack, who knows what they could have done.



Yep, good point.


----------



## 8den (Aug 9, 2009)

8ball said:


> 'Harmless eccentric' seems to sum it up.
> 
> Time was that America and Britain used to be quite friendly places for harmless eccentrics.



"Harmless and eccentric" don't wander around military computer systems, and when caught try and threatened their way out of a reasonable prison sentence.


----------



## In Bloom (Aug 9, 2009)

8den said:


> "Harmless and eccentric" don't wander around military computer systems, and when caught try and threatened their way out of a reasonable prison sentence.


How is a few years inside a "reasonable" sentence for logging on to an unsecured server, having a little look around and then logging out again?  If the DoD's technical bods were doing their jobs, McKinnon wouldn't even have gotten access in the first place.


----------



## 8den (Aug 9, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> How is a few years inside a "reasonable" sentence for logging on to an unsecured server, having a little look around and then logging out again?  If the DoD's technical bods were doing their jobs, McKinnon wouldn't even have gotten access in the first place.



If he'd wandered into the pentagon physically and poked around a few filing cabinets, he'd probably ended up with a few bullet holes. Do not fuck around with the US military, as my mum always said. You don't get a reduced sentence because you just happened to find the back door to the bank unlocked, nipped in and helped yourself to a few grand.


----------



## In Bloom (Aug 9, 2009)

8den said:


> If he'd wandered into the pentagon physically and poked around a few filing cabinets, he'd probably ended up with a few bullet holes. Do not fuck around with the US military, as my mum always said.


So power is its own justification then?  Might makes right?



> You don't get a reduced sentence because you just happened to find the back door to the bank unlocked, nipped in and helped yourself to a few grand.


Well no, but "helping yourself to a few grand" would be stealing, wouldn't it?  Whereas what McKinnon did caused no harm to anybody whatsoever, it is, in fact, debatable whether or not he is capable of causing harm through computer hacking.  Some might call that being "harmless".


----------



## 8den (Aug 9, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> So power is its own justification then?  Might makes right?



I'm not saying it's philosophically right, but pragmaticaly it's a good rule. 



> Well no, but "helping yourself to a few grand" would be stealing, wouldn't it?  Whereas what McKinnon did caused no harm to anybody whatsoever, it is, in fact, debatable whether or not he is capable of causing harm through computer hacking.  Some might call that being "harmless".



According to the US his actions halted military war games, costing over $500k worth of damage. I imagine the investigation into what he did and did not access cost a few quid on top of that. Mc Kinnon admitted that he accepted he was going to prison for what he did, and thought he'd get a year, he was shocked when he was offered three to five, and tried to bluff a threat along the lines of "you don't know what I've seen" to the Virginian prosecutor, possibly the worst thing to do in that situation. 

He's dug himself into a hole, he knew what he was doing was illegal, but didn't bother to check what the potential consequences were first.


----------



## In Bloom (Aug 9, 2009)

8den said:


> I'm not saying it's philosophically right, but pragmaticaly it's a good rule.


Well yes, but nobody is saying that McKinnon was particularly clever in what he did.



> According to the US his actions halted military war games, costing over $500k worth of damage. I imagine the investigation into what he did and did not access cost a few quid on top of that.


Most of those "losses" happened because McKinnon's actions highlighted that their system wasn't secure, those costs would have been incurred down the line anyway when they finally bothered their arses to think about the security of their computer systems.  Do you have any idea the damage a malicious attacker could have done with access to that information?



> Mc Kinnon admitted that he accepted he was going to prison for what he did, and thought he'd get a year, he was shocked when he was offered three to five, and tried to bluff a threat along the lines of "you don't know what I've seen" to the Virginian prosecutor, possibly the worst thing to do in that situation.
> 
> He's dug himself into a hole, he knew what he was doing was illegal, but didn't bother to check what the potential consequences were first.


Being stupid is not a crime.


----------



## 8den (Aug 9, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Well yes, but nobody is saying that McKinnon was particularly clever in what he did.
> 
> 
> Most of those "losses" happened because McKinnon's actions highlighted that their system wasn't secure, those costs would have been incurred down the line anyway when they finally bothered their arses to think about the security of their computer systems.  Do you have any idea the damage a malicious attacker could have done with access to that information?



Trespass is trespass. Mc Kinnon could have gotten three years and out in one, if he was sensible, instead he started off with attempting to bluff his way out even that. 



> Being stupid is not a crime.



Acting stupid can often be.


----------



## In Bloom (Aug 9, 2009)

8den said:


> Trespass is trespass.


Not really.  Trespass in a private individual's home, for instance, could be pretty disturbing for the individual it happened to, and trespass on the actual physical premises of an organisation could disrupt that organisation's smooth running, whereas this kind of "trespass" doesn't actually do any direct harm.  Saying "trespass is trespass" is pretty glib tbh, especially since what McKinnon did isn't even trespass by the legal definition of the term.


----------



## 8den (Aug 9, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Not really.  Trespass in a private individual's home, for instance, could be pretty disturbing for the individual it happened to, and trespass on the actual physical premises of an organisation could disrupt that organisation's smooth running, whereas this kind of "trespass" doesn't actually do any direct harm.  Saying "trespass is trespass" is pretty glib tbh, especially since what McKinnon did isn't even trespass by the legal definition of the term.



This is what Mc Kinnon is charged with



> He is accused of leaving 300 computers at US Naval Weapons Station Earle in New Jersey unusable immediately after the September 11 2001 terror attacks on America.
> 
> US prosecutors also allege he deleted files which shut down the US Army's military district of Washington DC network of more than 2,000 computers for 24 hours.



Whether he did or not is up to the US government to prove. But claiming he was just having a peek, and thats all he's charged with, is another in a long line of the misrepresentations that his support team have engaged in. 

Others include 

-Claiming he's facing 70 years in prison. (he's not, thats the maximum possible sentence if found guilty, he's not facing an automatic 70 year sentence the moment he steps onto US soil). 

-Not mentioning he'd turned down a deal which would see him face five years  tops, a deal offered so long ago, that if he had taken the sentence and had to face the full term, he'd be back in England already.


----------



## spring-peeper (Oct 10, 2009)

> A Briton accused of hacking into US military and NASA space agency computers was on Friday refused permission to appeal to the new Supreme Court in London against his extradition to the United States.
> 
> The High Court had turned down Gary McKinnon's extradition challenges and on Friday refused him leave to appeal, ruling that that his case did not raise "points of law of general public importance" -- a prerequisite of being able to pursue a cause in the Supreme Court.
> 
> ...


link


----------



## mike desantos (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> -Not mentioning he'd turned down a deal which would see him face five years  tops, a deal offered so long ago, that if he had taken the sentence and had to face the full term, he'd be back in England already.



It`s not quite that simple. 
In the words of Gary ...
"They said, 'If you incur the cost of the whole extradition process, be a good boy, come over here, we'll give you three or four years, rather than the whole sentence.' I said, 'OK, give me that in writing.' They said, 'Oh no, we can't do that.' So they were offering a secret trial, no right of appeal on the outcome, no comment to the newspapers, and nothing in writing.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

mike desantos said:


> It`s not quite that simple.
> In the words of Gary ...
> "They said, 'If you incur the cost of the whole extradition process, be a good boy, come over here, we'll give you three or four years, rather than the whole sentence.' I said, 'OK, give me that in writing.' They said, 'Oh no, we can't do that.' So they were offering a secret trial, no right of appeal on the outcome, no comment to the newspapers, and nothing in writing.



I'm aware it's not that simple, it's just the pretence of the defence campaign being "ooh look he's a harmless eccentric who's only crime is he's guilty of being a bit curious, oh and did we mention he's kind of autistic".


----------



## mike desantos (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> I'm aware it's not that simple



That`s good.  I`m hopeful that most people have more compassion than yourself, and that we can help keep Gary free from a foreign judicial system with a documented history of human rights abuses.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

mike desantos said:


> That`s good.  I`m hopeful that most people have more compassion than yourself, and that we can help keep Gary free from a foreign judicial system with a documented history of human rights abuses.



I am sympathetic, however it's not as if Mc Kinnon is going to be immediately clasped in irons and chucked in Gitmo for 70 years the moment he arrives in America. He'll undergo due process, face a criminal trial and have leave to appeal. 

It's America it's not like he's going to be in Midnight Express. Suggesting that Americans Prison system is any worse or better than the UKs is fucking daft.


----------



## mike desantos (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> It's America it's not like he's going to be in Midnight Express. Suggesting that Americans Prison system is any worse or better than the UKs is fucking daft.



Worse or better, not quite sure what you mean.  There is a good chance that  the US military will push for an example to be made of him, he will be a victim of the post-911 madness that has engulfed the country.  But bottom line, he shouldn`t be in a fucking prison - anywhere.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

mike desantos said:


> Worse or better, not quite sure what you mean.  There is a good chance that  the US military will push for an example to be made of him, he will be a victim of the post-911 madness that has engulfed the country.  But bottom line, he shouldn`t be in a fucking prison - anywhere.



Why? You don't think hacking is a crime?


----------



## marty21 (Oct 10, 2009)

I can't understand why the usa can't just let him be tried in the ok and serve a sentence in theuk if found guilty,he's a vulnerable individual who did something stupid


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

marty21 said:


> I can't understand why the usa can't just let him be tried in the ok and serve a sentence in theuk if found guilty,he's a vulnerable individual who did something stupid



Mc kinnons claims about autism are a very recent development in the case. He tried to blackmail his way out of the charge, and was hacking his way into pentagon in the days after 911. According to the charge sheet he did immense damage to US military computer systems  in the weeks after 911. A act of insane stupidity.

I'm not saying he's guilty I'd like to see him tried for his alleged crimes.


----------



## purplex (Oct 10, 2009)

marty21 said:


> I can't understand why the usa can't just let him be tried in the ok and serve a sentence in theuk if found guilty,he's a vulnerable individual who did something stupid



Would you say the same about polanski?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 10, 2009)

I can't see him getting a fair trial in the U.S. Not in a country where you can get _SEVENTY YEARS_ for such a 'crime'. We shouldn't even be thinking about extraditing anyone to a country that imposes pointless knee-jerk sentences like that. Especially when the extradition treaty only works one way. We should insist he's prosecuted here.


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> Mc kinnons claims about autism are a very recent development in the case.



You would be referring to his (entirely legitimate) medical diagnosis as being merely 'claims'? Last time I checked, a proper diagnosis from a qualified medical professional was treated somewhat more seriously than being regarded as a mere 'claim.' 

And you make this suggestion while being seemingly unaware of the established fact that he wasn't even tested for any form of Autism until his lawyers and mother flagged up the matter?

For your information, late diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome is by no means unusual. I wasn't diagnosed with it until I was in my early 30's, for starters.


----------



## spring-peeper (Oct 10, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> You would be referring to his (entirely legitimate) medical diagnosis as being merely 'claims'? Last time I checked, a proper diagnosis from a qualified medical professional was treated somewhat more seriously than being regarded as a mere 'claim.'
> 
> And you make this suggestion while being seemingly unaware of the established fact that he wasn't even tested for any form of Autism until his lawyers and mother flagged up the matter?
> 
> For your information, late diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome is by no means unusual. I wasn't diagnosed with it until I was in my early 30's, for starters.



And did you hack any military computer systems before you were diagnosed?  Did you do anything even close?


----------



## Endeavour (Oct 10, 2009)

purplex said:


> Would you say the same about polanski?


How is that relevant at all?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2009)

purplex said:


> Would you say the same about polanski?



no, cos the chances of anyone letting polanski serve a sentence in the uk are remote.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> You would be referring to his (entirely legitimate) medical diagnosis as being merely 'claims'? Last time I checked, a proper diagnosis from a qualified medical professional was treated somewhat more seriously than being regarded as a mere 'claim.'
> 
> And you make this suggestion while being seemingly unaware of the established fact that he wasn't even tested for any form of Autism until his lawyers and mother flagged up the matter?
> 
> For your information, late diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome is by no means unusual. I wasn't diagnosed with it until I was in my early 30's, for starters.



I'm not saying he's not got Aspergers its just that his defence team decided to present the Aspergers argument very late in the day. 

Other posters on this matter who have Aspergers get offended that is even used as a defence. They argue that they are capable of living ordinary and normal lives in spite of having this form of Autism, and they feel that someone trying to use this as some kind of justification for a criminal act damages the argument that people with Aspergers should be capable of living ordinary lives. 

While I think Aspergers is real I think people with Aspergers can lead completely normal lives. Therefore I don't think using Aspergers as a justification that Mc Kinnon wasn't culpable for his actions, is damaging for people who want greater understanding for people with Autism.

Honestly Bakunin would you feel comfortable using your Aspergers as part of a defence for a crime that was clearly a systematic and thought out action?

Any idiot could tell you that hacking the pentagon repeatedly is a bad idea. Mc Kinnon's defence team's argument appears to be "Hey he has Aspergers he had no idea that infiltrating the US military computer systems might be a bad idea a few days after 911". 

Call me weird but I dont equate Aspergers with idiocy.


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 10, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> And did you hack any military computer systems before you were diagnosed?  Did you do anything even close?



No, I didn't. Nor did do anything similar. But it is one of the few confirmed and recognised facts about Autism that we Autistic folk can end up socially isolated and also develop obsessional interests that can, in some cases,lead to our judgement being impaired and I'd not be surprised to hear that this was what happened to Gary McKinnon.

Thus, his diagnosis is relevent and shouldbe taken into consideration, not only as a mitigating circumstance for what he's alleged to have done, but also in terms of his vulnerability with regard to sentencing.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> No, I didn't. Nor did do anything similar. But it is one of the few confirmed and recognised facts about Autism that we Autistic folk can end up socially isolated and also develop obsessional interests that can, in some cases,lead to our judgement being impaired and I'd not be surprised to hear that this was what happened to Gary McKinnon.
> 
> Thus, his diagnosis is relevent and shouldbe taken into consideration, not only as a mitigating circumstance for what he's alleged to have done, but also in terms of his vulnerability with regard to sentencing.



But he's not getting sentenced. Hes facing a trial. The US government argument is that he massive amounts of damage to military computer systems. Arguing that he shouldn't even go to America and face trial for his actions, because hes got Aspergers is just wrong.


----------



## Endeavour (Oct 10, 2009)

8den said:


> *But he's not getting sentenced. Hes facing a trial. *The US government argument is that he massive amounts of damage to military computer systems. Arguing that he shouldn't even go to America and face trial for his actions, because hes got Aspergers is just wrong.


No he's not. He's facing extradition.


----------



## 8den (Oct 10, 2009)

Endeavour said:


> No he's not. He's facing extradition.



No he's appealing extradition to avoid a trial. They're not going to chuck out due process. He'll be charged, plead guilty or not guilty, face a federal court, and can appeal the result all the way to the US Supreme court.


----------



## dylans (Oct 11, 2009)

8den said:


> Honestly Bakunin would you feel comfortable using your Aspergers as part of a defence for a crime that was clearly a systematic and thought out action?
> .



If I was facing extradition and a possible 70 year sentence I would use anything I could in my defence.

i wish him all the best and hope he finds a way out of this mess. He definitely doesn't deserve to go to prison for such a long time


----------



## purplex (Oct 11, 2009)

Endeavour said:


> How is that relevant at all?



Both cases involve extradition to the US, theres the relevance.
You said Mckinnon should be tried and sentenced in the UK. 
Would you favour trying and sentencing Polanski in France?


----------



## Azrael (Oct 11, 2009)

8den said:


> Any idiot could tell you that hacking the pentagon repeatedly is a bad idea. Mc Kinnon's defence team's argument appears to be "Hey he has Aspergers he had no idea that infiltrating the US military computer systems might be a bad idea a few days after 911".
> 
> Call me weird but I dont equate Aspergers with idiocy.


Exactly. The best they can hope to do is to convince a court that Mr McKinnon should be acquitted under the "irresistible impulse" provision in insanity laws (since he clearly knows the difference between right and wrong). Virginia has such a law, so they could give it a spin. 

Given the premeditation involved in his alleged crimes, and Mr McKinnon's unhinged attempt to blackmail the federal government, good luck with that. 

This case has become a clotheshorse for various agendas, none of which fit, from the unreasoned and emotive "He has Asperger's, you monsters!" to irrelevant complaints about the extradition treaty. The sooner the accused is extradited, the better. I predict a swift plea-bargain and a sentence in the 5-10 year range if and when he is.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 11, 2009)

purplex said:


> Would you say the same about polanski?



not the same really is it, polanski fled justice, mckinnon is asking to be tried for a crime, he did commit when he was in the uk, in the uk


----------



## spring-peeper (Oct 11, 2009)

marty21 said:


> not the same really is it, polanski fled justice, mckinnon is asking to be tried for a crime, he did commit when he was in the uk, in the uk



But he the crime he is accused of took place on US soil.

This is not a good example, but what he was lobbing bombs at oh-say France.  Shouldn't France be able to prosecute him?


----------



## 8den (Oct 11, 2009)

dylans said:


> If I was facing extradition and a possible 70 year sentence I would use anything I could in my defence.



Thats not really a compelling argument vis a vie his innocence.



> i wish him all the best and hope he finds a way out of this mess. He definitely doesn't deserve to go to prison for such a long time



And if he gets 70 years I'll be outraged. But thats the maximum possible sentence he'll get if found guilty. Mc Kinnon's defence team try and portray this as the moment he lands on US soil he'll be thrown in a prison for two thirds of a century. The US need to prove that he caused all the damage they are alleging he did, and then he needs to have the book thrown at him. It's the thoroughly dishonest misrepresentation of what is happening that annoys me.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

8den said:


> And if he gets 70 years I'll be outraged. But thats the maximum possible sentence he'll get if found guilty. Mc Kinnon's defence team try and portray this as the moment he lands on US soil he'll be thrown in a prison for two thirds of a century. The US need to prove that he caused all the damage they are alleging he did, and then he needs to have the book thrown at him. It's the thoroughly dishonest misrepresentation of what is happening that annoys me.



You obviously know nothing of the American justice system.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

8den said:


> vis a vie



That is brilliant though, I must admit.


----------



## 8den (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You obviously know nothing of the American justice system.




Cross thread trolling Phil? I'd say it's beneath you, but nothing really is?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 11, 2009)

8den said:


> Cross thread trolling Phil? I'd say it's beneath you, but nothing really is?



I really don't think you know much vis a vie the American justice system.

If he is convicted, and in America he certainly will be convicted, he'll get at least fifty years.  He'll serve at least twenty-five.  A punishment to fit the crime?


----------



## 8den (Oct 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I really don't think you know much vis a vie the American justice system.
> 
> If he is convicted, and in America he certainly will be convicted, he'll get at least fifty years.  He'll serve at least twenty-five.  A punishment to fit the crime?



And thats your opinion. I don't really hold high regard to your opinion. (I Do still chuckle at your utter inability to grasp that tamiflu isn't a vaccine on the swine flu thread) Do you even know what crimes he is actually being charged with?


----------



## Endeavour (Oct 11, 2009)

purplex said:


> Both cases involve extradition to the US, theres the relevance.
> *You said Mckinnon should be tried and sentenced in the UK. *
> Would you favour trying and sentencing Polanski in France?


I didn't actually, you must be confusing me with another poster, but yes I think he should be tried in the UK where the crime was committed.
Same as I think Polanski should be sent back to the states for sentencing where the crime was committed.


----------



## 8den (Oct 11, 2009)

Endeavour said:


> I didn't actually, you must be confusing me with another poster, but yes I think he should be tried in the UK where the crime was committed.



Well thats an incredibly loose definition. While Mc Kinnon was in the UK when he committed the crime, the computers he allegedly tampered with were in the US. Its all very 21st century complicated. I'm willing to hear the argument that he should be tried in the UK, but there's an equalling compelling argument that since the computers were in the US and he was knowingly and intentionally accessing US government systems, that he should be tried in the US.


----------



## purplex (Oct 11, 2009)

8den said:


> Well thats an incredibly loose definition. While Mc Kinnon was in the UK when he committed the crime, the computers he allegedly tampered with were in the US. Its all very 21st century complicated. I'm willing to hear the argument that he should be tried in the UK, but there's an equalling compelling argument that since the computers were in the US and he was knowingly and intentionally accessing US government systems, that he should be tried in the US.



I dont believe the acts can be tried under UK Legislation, we cant try someone for offences that happened abroad, someone can correct me if Im wrong. In that case its either extradite him to the US or he gets away scot-free. He has entered military computer systems and it doesnt really matter if the door is wide open you are not allowed to do that, its a criminal act and the US have every right to demand his extradition.


----------



## 8den (Oct 11, 2009)

purplex said:


> I dont believe the acts can be tried under UK Legislation, we cant try someone for offences that happened abroad, someone can correct me if Im wrong. In that case its either extradite him to the US or he gets away scot-free. He has entered military computer systems and it doesnt really matter if the door is wide open you are not allowed to do that, its a criminal act and the US have every right to demand his extradition.



Pretty much the way I see it. The argument that Mc Kinnon exploited a stupid weakness in US military security is not mitigating, it's like trying to say that you deserve a shorter sentence because you stole a car simply because the keys were in the ignition. Thats not an excuse. The crime is a crime. There was a case a few years back when a purse thief got a massive sentence because the bag she nicked happened to have thousands of euros in it. Thats as idiotic as this.


----------



## mike desantos (Oct 14, 2009)

8den said:


> Why? You don't think hacking is a crime?



Millions of deaths from war and starvation since world war 2 are what i call a crime, and we should honour people of conscience like McKinnon for trying to stop this.  He was was looking for proof that revolutionary technologies are being suppressed which could liberate the planet and eradicate poverty.  
Technology and research we know exists : Tesla's Self-Powered Automobile,  The Moray Radian Energy Device, Gabriel Kron and the Negative Resistor,  Cold Fusion,  Dr. Randell Mills and Blacklight Power and many, many more

The logic of your argument is that people shouldn`t have resisted the Nazi government because they would have been breaking German law.


----------



## Meltingpot (Oct 14, 2009)

8den said:


> I am sympathetic, however it's not as if Mc Kinnon is going to be immediately clasped in irons and chucked in Gitmo for 70 years the moment he arrives in America. He'll undergo due process, face a criminal trial and have leave to appeal.
> 
> It's America it's not like he's going to be in Midnight Express. *Suggesting that Americans Prison system is any worse or better than the UKs is fucking daft.*



No one here's suggesting that British prisons are pleasant places, but we haven't got Wackenhut (yet). 

http://social.jrank.org/pages/1347/Prisons-Punishment-Profit.html

Or Joe Arpaio.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 14, 2009)

mike desantos said:


> Millions of deaths from war and starvation since world war 2 are what i call a crime, and we should honour people of conscience like McKinnon for trying to stop this.  He was was looking for proof that revolutionary technologies are being suppressed which could liberate the planet and eradicate poverty.


I think not. By his own admission, Mr McKinnon was an obsessive looking into UFOs. He's welcome to his curious hobby, but not to the damage he inflicted along the way. 


8den said:


> Pretty much the way I see it. The argument that Mc Kinnon exploited a stupid weakness in US military security is not mitigating, it's like trying to say that you deserve a shorter sentence because you stole a car simply because the keys were in the ignition. Thats not an excuse. The crime is a crime. There was a case a few years back when a purse thief got a massive sentence because the bag she nicked happened to have thousands of euros in it. Thats as idiotic as this.


Agree with all of this. The law is there to punish a combination of criminal intent and action. Incidental benefits are by the by. 

If Mr McKinnon had any sense, he'd drop his increasingly desperate attempts to dodge the buck, take himself to the USA, and throw himself on whatever mercy the relevant DAs have left after the run-around he's put them through. A groveling apology for trying to blackmail the US government would do him no ill. 

In return, perhaps they can bang him up in a Nevada lock-up. Groom Lake locality.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 15, 2009)

The cost of "damage" claimed in these cases can be misleading.

If someone does gain unauthorised access to your system, it needs to be thoroughly audited, maybe rebuilt. _Even if the trespasser changed nothing, but only looked_.  

Reason for this, is how do you _prove_ that. One has be able, sometimes literally, to affirm on oath the validity and integrity of the system's data. 

Not a lot of people know this. I can certainly understand  an aspie not realising it.


----------



## 8den (Oct 15, 2009)

Jonti said:


> The cost of "damage" claimed in these cases can be misleading.
> 
> If someone does gain unauthorised access to your system, it needs to be thoroughly audited, maybe rebuilt. _Even if the trespasser changed nothing, but only looked_.
> 
> ...



The argument is that Mc Kinnon damaged systems to the degree that he put on hold war games. He hacked into systems and even left lil notes while doing so. That implies knowledge. Mc Kinnon in his interview with Jon Ronson even admitted that he accepted that he would do jail time, but did not expect the severity of his sentence. That means he understood what he was doing was illegal, but didn't grasp the severity of his offence. It's like understanding that drink driving is wrong but getting shocked that the police are throwing the fucking book at you.


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 29, 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8327179.stm

McKinnon's extradition has been put on hold while 'new medical evidence' is examined and an appeal is made to the European Court. The fight isn't quite over yet.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 29, 2009)

The carousel turns some more. 

A hypothetical point. Most people seeking a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome have no reason to lie. However qualified the diagnoser, they may not be prepared for deception, and so not guard against it. It's not hard to find the symptoms on the net.


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 29, 2009)

Azrael said:


> The carousel turns some more.
> 
> A hypothetical point. Most people seeking a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome have no reason to lie. However qualified the diagnoser, they may not be prepared for deception, and so not guard against it. It's not hard to find the symptoms on the net.



Faking those symptoms well enough to fool a professional would be something of a challenge though, to put it mildly. Being on a spectrum of disorders, Asperger's can present in a number of different ways and simply noting down the general symptoms from the web then attempting to replicate them, to the satisfaction of a medical professional, would require a considerable degree of knowledge and no small amount of acting ability.


----------



## Azrael (Oct 29, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Faking those symptoms well enough to fool a professional would be something of a challenge though, to put it mildly.


Much like hacking into the US defence system? Hypothetically speaking. 

I'm not saying anything _has_ been faked, before Mr McKinnon's lawyers come sniffing. I'm just saying that, in general, it is a possibility.


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 29, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Much like hacking into the US defence system? Hypothetically speaking.
> 
> I'm not saying anything _has_ been faked, before Mr McKinnon's lawyers come sniffing. I'm just saying that, in general, it is a possibility.



IIRC, the reason McKinnon is alleged to have found hacking into the US defence system so easy is by his having used a password sniffing program which found passwords on a router somewhere in the defence network that some utter muppet decided to install with its default security settings. McKinnon isn't a master hacker, he simply got lucky.

It's a possibility that people can fake symptoms of any illness, but it would certainly be very difficult to fool a trained professional into thinking that you have something like Asperger's.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 30, 2009)

Yeah, I doubt that McKinnon is "faking" Asperger's.  You'd need a good deal more knowledge than the generalised lists of symptoms you find online and no small amount of acting ability, otherwise you'd just come across as a bit odd.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 1, 2009)

Gary Mckinnon's case was discussed in parliament today. 

Johnson (home sec) said despite a suicide risk, and despite Mckinnons aspergers and depression he was suitable to deport for trial in America.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 2, 2009)

Johnson seemed to be doing as much a possible to distance himself of all responsibility, maintaining it was a quasi judicial decision and that Gary's Aspergers did not constitute a serious enough level of illness to prevent him being extradited. 

He seemed to disregard any risk of suicide and played up the fact that it would (in his words) 'damage' our relationship with the US and threaten our extradition agreements - of which we've rejected more US requests than they have rejected of ours.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 2, 2009)

imho Johnson is a wanker anyhow, I fail to see how some people rate him. 

I wonder if there is any more appealing to be done or if this is the end of the line in the UK.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 2, 2009)

There is. He's got two more possible appeals.

And yes. Johnson is a weasel. On this, and on drugs policy.


----------



## spring-peeper (Dec 2, 2009)

Justice will be served.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Dec 2, 2009)

All the more reason for the U.K. to begin to disentangle itself from the spiderweb of U.S foreign policy and begin to assert itself as a "sovereign nation" whose future rests in the heart of the continent it belong to.

The extradition policy currently in place between the U.K and U.S governments is one sided and shameful.
However,people that bitch about the European Union stripping the U.K of it own decision making neglect to mention that this "Mother of all parliaments",this bitch of a parliament,is truly the bitch of the U.S.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 2, 2009)

Sesquipedalian said:


> The extradition policy currently in place between the U.K and U.S governments is one sided and shameful.


I agree, but that doesn't affect Mr Mckinnon, as the USA clearly have the _prime facie_ case that the old treaty required.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 2, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> Justice will be served.



That remains to be seen.

As I see it, there are two possibilities here. Either he hacked into a dummy "honeypot" system, in which case no harm was done, or he hacked into a genuine system in which the security precautions were criminally negligent - according to reports the password he used to gain access in some cases was "password."

In either case, if he was guilty of an offence at all it was a trivial one and so should the punishment be.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Dec 2, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I agree, but that doesn't affect Mr Mckinnon, *the USA clearly have the prime facie case that the old treaty required.*



It's a red herring that you throw to the wild cats.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 2, 2009)

There is apparently an extra week for his lawyers to challenge moves to extradite him.


----------



## Azrael (Dec 3, 2009)

Sesquipedalian said:


> It's a red herring that you throw to the wild cats.


And the mixed metaphor for comedic effect 2009 award goes to ...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 3, 2009)

We should only extradite him if the Americans agree to send the manager of the Bhopal site for trial in India.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Dec 14, 2009)

http://freegary.org.uk/
Demo tomorrow  12 noon to 2pm @ Home Office, Marsham Street,
Who else is coming?


----------



## dylans (Dec 14, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> We should only extradite him if the Americans agree to send the manager of the Bhopal site for trial in India.



This


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Dec 15, 2009)

I attended this lunchtime's demo outside the home office, quite a good turnout. LibDems have been quick off the mark getting their  up on youtube  already!  Keith Vaz was there too.I saw  Neil Kinnock and Glenys  over the road getting out of a car and into a resturant - they were asked to join us but they declined
 After the two hour  protest I went home but  a few others braved the cold to march on to Buckingham Palace - I have'nt seen any telly or had the radio on since I've got back - has this been covered on the news much? There were enough press there today...


----------



## IC3D (Dec 15, 2009)

dynamicbaddog said:


> I attended this lunchtime's demo outside the home office, quite a good turnout. LibDems have been quick off the mark getting their  up on youtube  already!  Keith Vaz was there too.I saw  Neil Kinnock and Glenys  over the road getting out of a car and into a resturant - they were asked to join us but they declined
> After the two hour  protest I went home but others a few others braved the cold to march on to Buckingham Palace - I have'nt seen any telly or had the radio on since I've got back - has this been covered on the news much? There were enough press there today...



There was a little bit on BBC London at lunchtime, I would of come down but was busy


----------



## Azrael (Dec 15, 2009)

dynamicbaddog said:


> LibDems have been quick off the mark getting their  up on youtube  already!


The same Lib Dems who support the Euro arrest warrant!


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Dec 16, 2009)

Here's some photos from the protest





http://tinyurl.com/ya287j3


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 30, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> Are your British jails so much better than the US ones?



Well they're not full of annoying Americans.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 7, 2010)

.
*Extradition of Gary McKinnon 'breaches Bill of Rights'*
Extraditing the alleged British computer hacker Gary Mckinnon to America will breach Britain's 300-year-old Bill of Rights, a top human rights barrister has said. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...of-Gary-McKinnon-breaches-Bill-of-Rights.html


----------



## spring-peeper (Jan 7, 2010)

I don't think it will help his case, but interesting none the less.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2010)

Bill of rights?

Weak.

It existed whilst the Bloody Code was in force.

He should be tried in the country where he committed his crimes. The UK.

The ECHR should ensure this. That is where his salvation lies.

Sadly the Labour government is clutching at straws to look like a functioning administration and they'll throw him away in a futile gesture of toughness.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 8, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bill of rights?
> 
> Weak.
> 
> It existed whilst the Bloody Code was in force.


Along with transportation, branding, and the stocks. With a nip of the lash for afters. Perhaps we should pack Mr McKinnon off to Australia for life and be done with it. 

Top human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, QC, also thinks that Charles I's show trial was a step forward in terms of fairness and due process (see _The Tyrannicide Brief_, which I enjoyed). 

The cruel and unusual punishment part of the Bill of Rights Act, 1689, was used to get Titus Oates off. Has there been much development in the jurisprudence since that fine (  ) decision? 

The McKinnon case gets ever-more bizarre. What would be the theoretical maximum that Mr McKinnon would face if he were tried in England? Has anyone bothered to ask? Has anyone bothered to ask an American lawyer the sort of jail time that Mr McKinnon is actually likely to face?


----------



## Azrael (Jan 8, 2010)

"[Gary McKinnon's] lawyers and family say he could face a prison sentence of up to 60 years, though American prosecutors have said that he would be likely to get no more than a 10-year sentence." [1]


----------



## Jonti (Jan 8, 2010)

It's a stupid and disproportionate response to what Gary did.

They'd've been smart quietly to discuss their appalling computer security with friendly and helpful bods like Gary. Instead, US goons have chosen to  terrorise folks to leave their naff, leaky, amateurish computer "security" alone!

It doesn't take much to join the dots here.  It hurts seppoe pride to accept their over-paid security clowns are, well, overpaid clowns who don't get security. So they'll victimise folks like Gary with disproportionate and cruel retribution in an attempt to terrorise folks into silence.  

"If folks are scared off from showing there's a problem, then there's no problem."

It's really a very stupid approach indeed.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 8, 2010)

Jonti said:


> They'd've been smart quietly to discuss their appalling computer security with friendly and helpful bods like Gary.


From what I gather, the errors Mr McKinnon ("Gary", are you his mate?  ) exploited were rudimentary, and stupid, so I doubt there's much he could teach. They'll have been fixed over now, regardless. 


> Instead, US goons have chosen to  terrorise folks to leave their naff, leaky, amateurish computer "security" alone!


It should scare off any other amateurish idiots, shouldn't it? Job done, surely? 


> It doesn't take much to join the dots here.  It hurts seppoe pride to accept their over-paid security clowns are, well, overpaid clowns who don't get security. So they'll victimise folks like Gary with disproportionate and cruel retribution in an attempt to terrorise folks into silence.
> 
> "If folks are scared off from showing there's a problem, then there's no problem."
> 
> It's really a very stupid approach indeed.


He's not even been convicted, yet. The USA (or two of its consituent states, I'm not sure) have simply charged Mr McKinnon with what he's (admitted) he's done. They offered him a plea bargain, which he rejected, followed by an unhinged attempt at blackmail. Now they're trying to extradite him. That's it, to date. 

And this by you is victimisation?


----------



## Jonti (Jan 8, 2010)

You're as daft as Blair!

Some neurologically atypical dude taps at a keyboard here in the UK, and the seppoes get testerical.

It's no big deal, and certainly not an issue worth a jot of national sovereignty.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 8, 2010)

Points for use of the word "testerical". Made me giggle for a moment. 

We abrogated our own sovereignty by signing up to the stupid new extradition treaty. Did Washington even have to threaten us? Did they want to? 

This is by the by, in this particular case. There's obviously _prima facie_ charges against Mr McKinnon, and he's incriminated himself by confessing. There's no doubt about his guilt. His culpability is another thing. If Mr McKinnon's "actions were motivated by an undiagnosed disorder over which he had no control", he should be acquitted. 

Hmmm, no, actually, he shouldn't. Note Mr Robinson's slippery use of language there: he doesn't actually say that Mr McKinnon was incapable of stopping himself, but gives that impression by the clever use of the phrase "has no control". 

First, let us decipher all the lawyers

If Mr McKinnon was subject to an irresistible impulse to hack his merry way through the US defence systems, he should be acquitted. Let a court decide. A US court.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 8, 2010)

No; when I type here, I type _here_.

If you don't like what that does to your kit over _there_, you can just fookin' fix it.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 8, 2010)

And if a man orders a murder in France over the phone from Britain, let him experience the joys of the Napoleonic code. Jurisdiction can't rely on a criminal being physically present in your territory. That restriction went out with the invention of the electric telegraph. If it ever existed. 

The US can, and have, fookin' fixed it. They claim it cost them a substantial wedge of greenbacks. Bet it did, too. Mr McKinnon has things to answer for. Let him answer. 

An angle the American-bashing British press have ignored: is this circus doing Mr McKinnon any good? Could it not be better for him and his family to face up to what he's done, instead of being indulged with a chorus of excuse-making?


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 8, 2010)

Azrael said:


> And if a man orders a murder in France over the phone from Britain, let him experience the joys of the Napoleonic code. Jurisdiction can't rely on a criminal being physically present in your territory. That restriction went out with the invention of the electric telegraph. If it ever existed.



But someone ordering a hit ('soliciting murder' as lawyers call it) in the UK then he wouldn't necessarily be extradited. Granted, he could be tried for soliciting murder here and for murder itself in France, and quite probably would be as there's no death penalty in France which would a principal barrier (in a murder case) to his being extradited.

It's not an automatic process, extradition, by any means.

Extraditions between the USA and UK do seem, to me anyway, to be heavily weighted in favour of the US getting the defendants they want while the UK is more reliant on the agreement of the USA, despite there being a supposedly equal agreement between the two countries. It wasn't always like this. When there were large numbers of American servicemen here during WWII, for example, many who committed crimes against British civilians were tried and sentenced before British courts when the American forces could easily have insisted (and sometimes did) that they be tried under American military law. The option for American servicemen to be tried before a British civilian court was something the American servicemen viewed as something of a better option as, under American military law, American servicemen could be shot or hanged for offences that would only have merited prison sentences (albeit often long ones) if tried by a civilian British court.

A prime example of the US Army turning over an American citizen to the British authorities (when they could have insisted on trying him themselves) can be found in the 'cleft chin murder' for which an American deserter, Karl Hulten, was tried before a British civilian court, convicted, condemned and duly hanged can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleft_chin_murder


----------



## Azrael (Jan 8, 2010)

Bakunin said:


> But someone ordering a hit ('soliciting murder' as lawyers call it) in the UK then he wouldn't necessarily be extradited. Granted, he could be tried for soliciting murder here and for murder itself in France, and quite probably would be as there's no death penalty in France which would a principal barrier (in a murder case) to his being extradited.
> 
> It's not an automatic process, extradition, by any means.


True, but Mr Murder Conspirator would (so far as I understand, I welcome correction) be eligible for extradition. And couldn't a French judge issue an EU arrest warrant? 

(It's odd that a risk of execution, however remote, is the deciding factor. Personally, I think being subjected to lengthy lawyer-free interrogations by French police, years on remand, and a very dubious version of jury trial are bigger concerns. I guess that's by the by, though.)


> Extraditions between the USA and UK do seem, to me anyway, to be heavily weighted in favour of the US getting the defendants they want while the UK is more reliant on the agreement of the USA, despite there being a supposedly equal agreement between the two countries.


Also true. Blame the government for signing up to the lopsided treaty. It doesn't have a particular bearing on the McKinnon case, as the case against him clearly meets the requirements of the old treaty. Even Mr McKinnon's imaginative defence haven't argued that it doesn't. 

We either oppose every single extradition to the USA on principle until the treaty is changed, or we're selective. If we're selective, there's no reason to select Mr McKinnon. None whatsoever. 

And while the EU arrest warrant isn't "lopsided", it's just as bad as the US treaty. Worse, if anything, since only a minority of EU countries have anything approaching jury trial as we know it (off the top of my head, only Denmark and Spain, with Beligum employing it for a tiny, tiny number of crimes, mostly murders). 


> It wasn't always like this. When there were large numbers of American servicemen here during WWII, for example, many who committed crimes against British civilians were tried and sentenced before British courts when the American forces could easily have insisted (and sometimes did) that they be tried under American military law. The option for American servicemen to be tried before a British civilian court was something the American servicemen viewed as something of a better option as, under American military law, American servicemen could be shot or hanged for offences that would only have merited prison sentences (albeit often long ones) if tried by a civilian British court.


Interesting, will have to read up on this some more (I know the US expeditionary force was keen to employ the services of one Albert Pierrepoint  ). 

Countries should vigorously defend their sovereignty. Britain has failed to do so over the shabby US extradition treaty, but it's not the Americans' fault that our government is a walkover, or just doesn't give a damn about the rights of the accused. The USA properly insisted that none of its citizens or lawful residents could be extradited to Britain without probable cause. We'll not protect British subjects/residents extradited on dubious charges by defending Mr McKinnon. His defence is doing their client no favours by dragging their appeals out to the crack of doom. 

Wouldn't it be better for Mr McKinnon to face the music (which he'll have to, eventually) and move on with his life? If he'd accepted the (generous) plea bargain he was offered several years back, he'd already have been released by now! Instead he tried to blackmail the US goverment. He's not done himself any favours.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 8, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Interesting, will have to read up on this some more (I know the US expeditionary force was keen to employ the services of one Albert Pierrepoint  )



They didn't get Albert as a Chief Executioner as far as I know, as they employed his uncle for that job (Albert's father and uncle were both hangmen as well until Albert's father was struck off the list for arriving at a prison drunk, the evening before an execution and then brawling with his assistant John Ellis. Pierrepoint and Ellis disliked one another intensely).

Albert's jobs involving war criminals were carried out under the jurisdiction of the British Army, Field Marshal Montgomery having asked for Albert personally, no less. Albert would execute more than 200 Nazis including, on one occasion, no less than 27 in one day.

My own article on the Pierrepoint family can be found here:

http://www.crimemagazine.com/master-hangmen


----------



## Azrael (Jan 8, 2010)

Partial _mea culpa_ re. Albert Pierrepoint and the US executions. Tom was lead hangman, and Albert (usually) assisted. Extract from his autobiography here. Interestingly, Albert found the American procedure of reading out the full charge while the condmened stood on the gallows the worst thing about it. Given that this apparently took upwards of five minutes, I can see why! 

Excellent article, thanks for the link.  I particularly like your description of Albert Pierrepoint as a "highly conscientious hangman, the consummate professional, a perfectionist when it came to the art and science of administering as quick, clean and gentle a hanging as was humanely possible". Sums him up well, from what I've read of him.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 8, 2010)

So what is it that people are asking us to do? 

Is it for a British rather than American trial?

What specifically are people being asked to do? 

Sorry can't read the whole thread.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 8, 2010)

weltweit said:


> What specifically are people being asked to do?


I really want to know this. There are different answers, of course, but is there any general principle at play? 

For those who raise Mr McKinnon's diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome: should people diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder automatically be acquitted? 

For those who, rightly, object to the unequal extradition treaty: what bearing does it have on this specific case? 

Many people support Mr McKinnon out of principle, which I respect. I'm just fuzzy about what those principles are!


----------



## Azrael (Jan 8, 2010)

[tangent] 

Returning for a sec to the US forces in WWII, *Bakunin* might find this snippet of Hansard about the United States (Visiting Forces) Bill interesting (the law that gave US servicemen and women immunity from English courts). 

I particularly like the Lord Chancellor's unrelated, and plain-speaking, comment on the odd law of criminal lible: "It is regarded as a crime because it is considered to be of so defamatory or insulting a character as to be calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, because even in this peaceable age and among quiet-mannered British people, if somebody publishes something about a person which is not only untrue but grossly scandalous and abominable, there is a temptation to hit the other man in the face."

They rarely make 'em like that any more. 

[/tangent]


----------



## sabatical (Jan 9, 2010)

Gary McKinnon .. Asperger's Syndrome: ... extradition treaty.

A one sided treat should be banned, if two people attend at the registrars to get married, and only one signs, is the marriage legal ?

If two people in business have a contract drawn up, but only one signs, is the contract legal ?
If a person owns a house, their home, and someone draws up a bill of sale and signs it, but the house owner doesn't, is the sale legal ?

Illegitimacy or bastardy, if only the mother attends the registrars to register the birth of a child, she can do it without the father being present, irrespective of him wanting to be there, so the child has only one parent on record.

The 'treaty is a bastard treaty'.
But which government signed it ?
It certainly wasn't with the consent of the electorate.

But the *real question *is of the trial......

What would be its content ?
The Americans claim damage was caused, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollar, which reduce in £ notes to around half the figure, though not value.
So in a British court, the Americans would have to justify their claim, *with all the details.*
They would also have to explain for what reason their computers were left 'open', in a world of spy's, enemy countries, and the possibility of sabotage being carried out.
They would have to explain the security which was in place, changed since, so it would not be classified as being 'secret' any more.
Do the American government have an open door policy, for other governments to help themselves by file sharing ?
If so, which governments ?
Did Gary upset them by exposing such a policy ?

A dissection of the upcoming trial, if it was held in Britain, and possibly a comparison with a trial in the USA, where much will be suppressed by the government, which  will only result in a 'show trial', as they will first do all they can to have the defendant plead guilt, so there would be no real trial, that is the presenting of the evidence to a jury, and the leaving of the jury to make a decision.
Even with a trial, much will be said to be against the interest of the State to be revealed, so will be suppressed.

And of interest to all, what did Gary find on their computers ?
He said he found no evidence of UFO's, no files, so where do they keep all their information of unidentified sightings ?
Do they have another set of computers ?
The British government kept files on sightings, but has recently closed the files.
We are not talking here of 'spacmen' but just sightings that at the time are unidentified, but later may be.

The charge under terrorist law should be thrown out, as he very obviously is not a 'terrorist' as defined in the last few years by the American government itself.

Now I'll leave of at that point, as I know we have lots of people who can add much more.


----------



## spring-peeper (Jan 9, 2010)

Did he hack their computers?  Yes, he admits to it and left notes.
Does the US government have the right to extradite?   Yes, Mr. McKinnon's government signed the agreement.
Does it matter what he found?  No, he is not being prosecuted for what he did or didn't find.  He is charged with being there.


----------



## sabatical (Jan 9, 2010)

spring-peeper said:


> Did he hack their computers?  Yes, he admits to it and left notes.
> Does the US government have the right to extradite?   Yes, Mr. McKinnon's government signed the agreement.
> Does it matter what he found?  No, he is not being prosecuted for what he did or didn't find.  He is charged with being there.



Technically you may be correct, but what the public want to know is why is the government is so insistent on a trial in the USA, after all he was sitting at a computer in England, where he 'committed his crime'.
Another thing is 'what crime' ?

He is being 'charged with being there', which doesn't add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage, so its not so simple is it ?
The question of what damage is also of concern, and what was said to be damaged, which should be discussed in open court.

Another thing is why a one way treaty ?
The legitimacy of the treaty also needs to be discussed in an open court, as it concerns ALL British citizens.

Its recently been discussed in the media, that the invasion of Iraq was illegal according to international law, and also to British law, so why are the culprits not being arrested ?
How much else is illegal, due to the New labour party [the old one is dead. R.I.P.]
So is the treaty legal ?
Lets find out in a court of law ?

After all, when the 'Americans' broke free of the British empire in the late 1700's, it was after all the British who broke free, wasn't it ?

The British middle classes, who had been the fervent supporters of private capitalism, and by the 1830's the Americans had accepted and implemented the British Liberal Party's policy of 'free trade capitalism'.

So in many ways the USA is only an extension of the British capitalist class.

But certainly a trial in Britain, would be completely different from one in the USA, after all the 'secrecy', the argument that some evidence cannot be dealt with as it would effect the USA's policies, would/couldn't not be acceptable in a court here.

And it would be of great interest for the public to hear all the evidence, and more so the defence of Gary.

And the treaty is still a 'bastard' treaty, irrespective of this or any other case.
And in British court rooms at the present the word 'bastard' is said not to be in use, though it still is in the law firms offices, and apparently in the Parliament.


----------



## spring-peeper (Jan 9, 2010)

sabatical said:


> Technically you may be correct, but what the public want to know is why is the government is so insistent on a trial in the USA, after all he was sitting at a computer in England, where he 'committed his crime'.
> Another thing is 'what crime' ?



He is being charge with hacking a US military site.



> He is being 'charged with being there', which doesn't add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage, so its not so simple is it ?
> The question of what damage is also of concern, and what was said to be damaged, which should be discussed in open court.



I'm sure that he will be tried in an open court.



> Another thing is why a one way treaty ?
> The legitimacy of the treaty also needs to be discussed in an open court, as it concerns ALL British citizens.



Does your country always hold public referendums on what they sign?  If so, then you have a point.  If not, then try to get them to start.



> Its recently been discussed in the media, that the invasion of Iraq was illegal according to international law, and also to British law, so why are the culprits not being arrested ?



*shrugs shoulders*  coz you protect war criminals????




> How much else is illegal, due to the New labour party [the old one is dead. R.I.P.]
> So is the treaty legal ?
> Lets find out in a court of law ?



Good luck with your research.  But, I'm betting the treaty is legal.



> After all, when the 'Americans' broke free of the British empire in the late 1700's, it was after all the British who broke free, wasn't it ?
> 
> The British middle classes, who had been the fervent supporters of private capitalism, and by the 1830's the Americans had accepted and implemented the British Liberal Party's policy of 'free trade capitalism'.
> 
> So in many ways the USA is only an extension of the British capitalist class.







> But certainly a trial in Britain, would be completely different from one in the USA, after all the 'secrecy', the argument that some evidence cannot be dealt with as it would effect the USA's policies, would/couldn't not be acceptable in a court here.



Again with the secret trial?



> And it would be of great interest for the public to hear all the evidence, and more so the defence of Gary.



Why - do you really think that the majority of people will care?  I'm sure that there will be some broadcast from the court house you can watch it on.



> And the treaty is still a 'bastard' treaty, irrespective of this or any other case.
> And in British court rooms at the present the word 'bastard' is said not to be in use, though it still is in the law firms offices, and apparently in the Parliament.



And the bastard treaty is totally legal.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 9, 2010)

sabatical said:


> A dissection of the upcoming trial, if it was held in Britain, and possibly a comparison with a trial in the USA, where much will be suppressed by the government, which  will only result in a 'show trial', as they will first do all they can to have the defendant plead guilt, so there would be no real trial, that is the presenting of the evidence to a jury, and the leaving of the jury to make a decision.


Evidence that the USA will be suppressing evidence, please. Anything? 

Mr McKinnon can have jury trial if he wants it. He probably will, as he's already rejected a plea bargain (and followed his refusal with a demented attempt at blackmailing the US government!). The burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, same as England. And the jury has to be unanimous, in both Virgina and New Jersey, wherever it is he gets tried. 

And if we had the old treaty, he'd have been extradited anyway. What point are you making here?


----------



## weltweit (Jan 9, 2010)

Is Aspergers any defence, really?


----------



## Azrael (Jan 9, 2010)

Not that I'm aware of. 

The criminal defence of insanity in common law was codified by the M'Naghten Rules in the 19th century. It requires that the accused was so mad he or she didn't know right from wrong (or to use the legalise, lacked _mens rea_/guity mind/criminal intent). Some US states, including Virginia, have updated it so that the accused can be acquitted if they had an "irresistabe impulse", or simply, knew they had done wrong, but were unable to stop themselves. 

None of this appears to apply to Mr McKinnon. The Asperger's diagnosis is an emotive red-herring. If it isn't, he can try his luck in a US court.


----------



## spring-peeper (Jan 10, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Is Aspergers any defence, really?



I agree with Azrael on the red herring.

His family is desperate not to have him charged and will try anything to stop him being deported.

Full credit to them, btw.  They have explored every avenue and used every public relations trick in the book.  They must have spend a fortune trying to protect their little boy.

Once the trial starts in America, I fear it will become tainted.  

If he had just gone over and said sorry, he would have received a minimum sentence.  Sadly he chose the pr route.  I can see him landing in America, with an entourage of British press, and the Americans are going to go "wft!!!".
Then they will polarize against him because it will be seen as the British trying to tell the colonials how to live their lives.

If you are doubting the above, let me quote from a previous post...


> After all, when the 'Americans' broke free of the British empire in the late 1700's, it was after all the British who broke free, wasn't it ?
> 
> The British middle classes, who had been the fervent supporters of private capitalism, and by the 1830's the Americans had accepted and implemented the British Liberal Party's policy of 'free trade capitalism'.
> 
> ...



Any full-blooded American would be truly offended.   Heck, I'm offended and I'm not even an American.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 10, 2010)

spring-peeper said:


> Any full-blooded American would be truly offended.   Heck, I'm offended and I'm not even an American.


Thankfully, the Virginians sitting on Mr McKinnon's jury are unlikely to have read it. I doubt they'll know much about the case, if anything. So far as I know it's not big news across the pond. (Or has the ongoing fuss changed that?) 

Will there even be a trial? US prosecutors do like their plea bargains. Once Mr McKinnon's been extradited and (probably) bailed, I wouldn't be surprised if they made him another offer, perhaps less generous than the last, but still reasonable enough to persuade him to cut his losses. Regardless, he'll probably change his tune once he's stateside, and his public defender has talked some sense into him. 

If I were a US prosecutor, I'd think up something non-custodial, and offer him that. Trimming the weeds around Groom Lake, perhaps. It'd take the wind out the hysterical British press (evil Yanks to sentence poor disabled soul to 70 years in a _rapin' jail_  ) and show mercy to the silly sod at the centre of it all.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 10, 2010)

To see just how far Mr McKinnon's lawyers are pushing it, check out this _Computer Weekly_ article. Apparently, extradition would violate his "right to life", in that it would drive him to suicide. 

Now that, m'learned friends, is what you call reaching! Special mention goes to his solicitor, Karen Todner, for her ingenious defence strategies.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 10, 2010)

> They would also have to explain for what reason their computers were left 'open', in a world of spy's, enemy countries, and the possibility of sabotage being carried out.


True this: it's another demonstration that our political masters would rather we rot in jail, or better die, than have their lies and incompetence exposed.


----------



## derf (Jan 10, 2010)

Jonti said:


> True this: it's another demonstration that our political masters would rather we rot in jail, or better die, than have their lies and incompetence exposed.



It may well be true that the US military have sod all clue.
Come to think of it, who the fuck would argue they were otherwise?
Why does that in any way excuse stupidity?


----------



## derf (Jan 10, 2010)

Azrael said:


> To see just how far Mr McKinnon's lawyers are pushing it, check out this _Computer Weekly_ article. Apparently, extradition would violate his "right to life", in that it would drive him to suicide.
> 
> Now that, m'learned friends, is what you call reaching! Special mention goes to his solicitor, Karen Todner, for her ingenious defence strategies.



Load of old tosh. He broke into defence computers and got nabbed.
Fucking tough shit and I do hope all this legal bollocks fails.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 10, 2010)

Jonti said:


> True this: it's another demonstration that our political masters would rather we rot in jail, or better die, than have their lies and incompetence exposed.


It's an example of the fact that governments ain't fans of people who break into their defence system. You wouldn't expect them to be!


----------



## spring-peeper (Jan 10, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Thankfully, the Virginians sitting on Mr McKinnon's jury are unlikely to have read it. I doubt they'll know much about the case, if anything. So far as I know it's not big news across the pond. (Or has the ongoing fuss changed that?)



They will learn about the case when Mr. McKinnon landed on their soil.  I imagine he will arrive here with an entourage of British press.  The Americans might not know about the case yet, but the Brits do and "inquiring minds will want to know".

btw - the story is getting exposure over here in Canada.  It's usually told in a rolly-eyes way.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 10, 2010)

spring-peeper said:


> They will learn about the case when Mr. McKinnon landed on their soil.  I imagine he will arrive here with an entourage of British press.  The Americans might not know about the case yet, but the Brits do and "inquiring minds will want to know".


Hope the press don't, for his sake. 

There's a chance it won't happen. We already had all this with the "Natwest Three". (Three bankers indicted by Texas over the Enron malarkey.) All the scaremongering we've seen with Mr McKinnon. They'd be thrown into a Texan gulag and turned into prison bitches for years while the case came to trial. (If it ever did: I remember at least one paid clown in the op-ed pages claiming they'd be spirited to Guitimo as "foreigners have no rights in the USA".) The jury would be packed by the evil Texan authorities (they're _Texan_, ferchrissakes!). And a hangin' judge would gaol them for decades. 

Then we had reality. They were bailed, allowed to work in the USA while they organised their own defence, and eventually organised a plea bargain, for three years & one month in prison. [1]. The media interest promptly died when the horror story failed to materialise. 


> btw - the story is getting exposure over here in Canada.  It's usually told in a rolly-eyes way.


Interesting. I've found a bit on CNN's website as well. Hopefully Mr McKinnon will be extradited before his defence and their tactics do him any more harm.


----------



## sabatical (Jan 10, 2010)

spring-peeper said:


> He is being charge with hacking a US military site.


No, he's being charged with 'hacking' THE US military site, there is a difference, the particular site is the most defended site they have, [how did anyone fly a plane into the most defended military buildings the Americans have, anywhere on the face of the earth,the Pentagon  ?  Or are some things allowable ? ].
Being charged and being proven guilty are different things, he's may have been charged, but its not till he is in court that any plea will, be entered.
And at that time the charge/s will be read out, if they are 'plea' bargaining, then the charge/s are not settled as yet.

And still, the truth is that the 'offence' if that is what it is, was commited in England, not in the USA.
Its should never be where the site is, but where the person is when the alleged offence was commited, if one is sitting in their lounge, then they cannot be said to have carried out a house breakin two streets away. 
All law should be based on logic, not metaphysics, if not then we are fully on our way back to the dark ages.




spring-peeper said:


> I'm sure that he will be tried in an open court.


I have not said he wouldn't be tried in open court, what I have said is that certain evidence will not be allowed in the USA courts, it will be said to be against the national interests, security, something they did not have on their computer when Gary visited. What has to be proven is 'criminal intent' and so far 'not a word' in that direction has been said by the Americans.

Gary claims he was only looking for evidence of UFO's, a pleasant pastime, and he went out of his way to leave them notes, telling them of their insecurity, by that I mean the insecurity of their computer system, not their political insecurity, which is now the driving force behind the prosecution. 

Which in itself should not be allowed to prejudice his case in any British court, but will do in the USA.

You see there are two different varieties of 'insecurity' being banded about, and only one applies, the other the political insecurity was their own fault.
[ Unfortunately their own insecurity has become worse since they invaded Afghanistan, but none can be blamed for that but them selves, and it hasn't helped the new President that on three occasions now, people have walked into events at the White House without any invitations, so paranoia is rampant, but that's another story. ]

Now if one steals a vehicle, that is what is on the charge sheet, if the owner wishes to pursue damages, they have to not only state the amount, but also what exactly constitutes the damaged property, which hasn't been done, so far.
So what is meant by 100,000's of dollars worth ?
He, or anyone else can only be charged with alleged damaged property, not with the costs of them installing new security measures, if so then any householder suffering a breakin will in future claim not only for loss and damage, but for 'bouncers' on the doors, alarm systems, shotguns, vicious dogs etc, all installed after the fact.




spring-peeper said:


> Does your country always hold public referendums on what they sign?  If so, then you have a point.  If not, then try to get them to start.


Aaaahhhh yes the lack of real democracy, the plea at Nuremburg, 'we were only following orders ''...........

''' If not, then try to get them to start.''' I will if you will, let me know when you're starting your campaign.





spring-peeper said:


> *shrugs shoulders*  coz you protect war criminals????



''coz you'', projection doesn't help, by 'you' I take it you were meaning yourself  ?
I don't indulge in such things myself.........




spring-peeper said:


> Good luck with your research.  But, I'm betting the treaty is legal.


At this point it 'bets on', that its legal, but in the last quote [see below] it becomes absolute that it is legal, a reversion to the 'dark age' mentality, the ' Monarch/Pope' has spoken, signed the treaty, so it must be god's truth.




spring-peeper said:


> Again with the secret trial?


No as I said 'Secrecy within the trial', the withholding of material evidence, such as how the computer were set up, the lack of passwords. One can wander about on this site without the initial need for a password, just click the links, so the question of what is 'hacking is fully relevant, is it not ?




spring-peeper said:


> Why - do you really think that the majority of people will care?  I'm sure that there will be some broadcast from the court house you can watch it on.


It would be good to see it fully broadcats, how about on you tube ?
In any society only part of the population are involved in politics, so that question of 'how many' is not justified.




spring-peeper said:


> And the bastard treaty is totally legal.


Now prove your statement, we all await you..............None can now deny that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and its yet to be proven that the invasion of Afghanistan had any legality.


----------



## sabatical (Jan 10, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Evidence that the USA will be suppressing evidence, please. Anything?



How many governments, China, Iran, Nigeria since being declared a 'terrorist state [infuriated all Nigerians.] Pakistan, especially under 'mushie', when they milked every cent they could from the USA, Russia, Korea, and how many more governments would like a breakdown of the USA militaries computer system ?
How many government agents, computer experts at this moment are trying to 'hack' the America governments computers ?
How many autistic people have they now recruited to work on it ?

It's obvious they would prefer a 'plea bargain', otherwise its all out in open court, so as far as Gary is concerned its in his interest to have a trial in Britain.
Why else would Go'd'n Brown, 'Jacky the lad' Straw and company want a trial in the USA ?

So lets sit down with Gary, turn on his computer and follow how he did it  ..................let him explain in detail click by click .........

Spring-Peeper   -------  ''''Any full-blooded American would be truly offended. Heck, I'm offended and I'm not even an American. ''''



Azrael said:


> And if we had the old treaty, he'd have been extradited anyway. What point are you making here?


The old treaty was done away with for political reasons, so any question of it now is irrelevant, the new one was also brought in for political reasons, it allows for any British subject to be extradited, what it means at the moment is not what it will mean in future, as all laws are open to be re-interpreted by any government, they do not use laws according to what was discussed at the time of their making.

And in this case, its British citizens being made to accept american law, as that is what they break to be extradited.

Yet no British citizen is involved in making American laws.

Yet all are now 'subject' to law made in another country, so is the 'bastard treaty' legal ?
.


----------



## 8den (Jan 10, 2010)

sabatical said:


> No, he's being charged with 'hacking' THE US military site, there is a difference, the particular site is the most defended site they have, [how did anyone fly a plane into the most defended military buildings the Americans have, anywhere on the face of the earth,the Pentagon  ?  Or are some things allowable ? ].e



That is possibly one of the most puerile idiotic most absurd non sequiturs I've ever seen.  




> Being charged and being proven guilty are different things, he's may have been charged, but its not till he is in court that any plea will, be entered.



You are either being obtuse or ignorant of the facts. A state department official offered a deal to Mc Kinnon years ago. If he had accepted that deal he'd already be out of prison and home by now. However what McKinnon did instead is attempt to blackmail the US government, and implied that he had secrets that he would release. It was a bluff. 

It was fucking idiotic. And of course the US government did not take kindly on this. Mc Kinnon managed to make a bad situation even worse, and your blathering about rights is fucking moronic. 



> And at that time the charge/s will be read out, if they are 'plea' bargaining, then the charge/s are not settled as yet.



Again you're showing up your basic ignorance of the facts of this situation. 



> And still, the truth is that the 'offence' if that is what it is, was commited in England, not in the USA.



But the computers were in the states. Its the 21st century, laws are going to have to adapt to fit new crimes. Suck it up. 



> Its should never be where the site is, but where the person is when the alleged offence was commited, if one is sitting in their lounge, then they cannot be said to have carried out a house breakin two streets away.
> All law should be based on logic, not metaphysics, if not then we are fully on our way back to the dark ages.



That is fucking daft. It's absurd if someone is sitting in their house, they're not breaking into another house. 

Your grasp of the law is infantile. 



> I have not said he wouldn't be tried in open court, what I have said is that certain evidence will not be allowed in the USA courts,



Sources please...


> it will be said to be against the national interests, security, something they did not have on their computer when Gary visited. What has to be proven is 'criminal intent' and so far 'not a word' in that direction has been said by the Americans.



So thats speculation.



> Gary claims he was only looking for evidence of UFO's, a pleasant pastime,



A pleasant pastime that lead him to hack the Pentagon's computers. Tell me what would have happened if he tried actually break into the pentagon physically he'd have been shot on sight.



> and he went out of his way to leave them notes, telling them of their insecurity, by that I mean the insecurity of their computer system, not their political insecurity, which is now the driving force behind the prosecution.



Oh fuck off. He was taking the piss, breaking into the US military computer system, weeks after 911 and you think thats "harmless"



> Snip



Irrelevant bollocks. The US has strict laws governing the of hacking of these systems. 

In fact Mc Kinnon when he went into his first meeting in Wood Green station knew he was facing a custodial sentence, he was just shocked at the severity. 

So he knew what he was doing was illegal, he knew that he potentially faced US jail time. He knew all this before he started hacking. 

It's like someone drink driving fully aware that if caught they face punishment, but not grasping how severe the punishment is. 

Once McKinnon released that he faced five years in prison, he attempted to blackmail and bluff his way out of getting punished. Over the past 8 years his campaign have come out with increasingly outlandlish claims (you're guilty of the worst of this) about he's going to get 70 years in prison, or that he wont' receive a fair trail. Neither of these claims have been supported with anything and substantive as facts.  




> How many governments, China, Iran, Nigeria since being declared a 'terrorist state [infuriated all Nigerians.] Pakistan, especially under 'mushie', when they milked every cent they could from the USA, Russia, Korea, and how many more governments would like a breakdown of the USA militaries computer system ?
> How many government agents, computer experts at this moment are trying to 'hack' the America governments computers ?
> How many autistic people have they now recruited to work on it ?



I'm sorry but what the fuck does any of the above delusional ranting have anything to do with the facts of the Mc Kinnon case. 




> It's obvious they would prefer a 'plea bargain', otherwise its all out in open court, so as far as Gary is concerned its in his interest to have a trial in Britain.




Gary turned down the plea bargain you numpity. 



> Why else would Go'd'n Brown, 'Jacky the lad' Straw and company want a trial in the USA ?



Jesus would you ever shut the fuck up. You've no evidence that Brown or Straw "want" a trial in the US, merely that they are honouring a treaty...



> Yet no British citizen is involved in making American laws.
> 
> Yet all are now 'subject' to law made in another country, so is the 'bastard treaty' legal ?
> .



Jesus I've seen slurry sprays come out with less crap than you. 

Lets make it simple. You drink drive in the US, murder someone,  there you can be extradited to face puinishment there. 

Mc Kinnon hacked computers that were property of the US government, and on US soil. 

I know you find it confusing. But you see that magic box you're putting words into, is connected to other magic boxes, all around the world. 

Jesus there sheer idiocy of your scattergun defense, ranting about other autistic computer hackers, harmless UFO hunting, the "he was in his house so he could break into a house across the road", is just fucking infantile and pathetic.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 10, 2010)

Utterly clueless contribution there, 8den. 

Where was the alleged crime committed; and who's saying it's a crime?


----------



## 8den (Jan 10, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Utterly clueless contribution there, 8den.
> 
> Where was the alleged crime committed; and who's saying it's a crime?



The alleged crime was committed on computers based on US soil. 

And even Mc Kinnon was aware what he was doing at the time was illegal, and he faced prosecution in a US court before he started out. 



> Gary was kept in a police station overnight. Then the Americans offered him a deal, via his British solicitor. "They said, 'If you incur the cost of the whole extradition process, be a good boy, come over here, we'll give you three or four years, rather than the whole sentence.' I said, 'OK, give me that in writing.' They said, 'Oh no, we can't do that.' So they were offering a secret trial, no right of appeal on the outcome, no comment to the newspapers, and nothing in writing. My solicitor, doing her job, advised me to take it, and when I said no, she was very, 'Ooh, they're going to come down heavy.' "
> 
> In return, Gary offered a somewhat hare-brained counter deal, via a Virginia public defender. "I made a sort of veiled threat to them. I said, 'You know the places I've been, so you know the stuff I've seen' kind of thing." He pauses and blushes slightly. "That didn't work."
> 
> "So you were saying, 'If you go heavy on me, I'll tell people what I found'?"



He's charged with hacking and vandalism. And keep in mind he was offered a  18m to 3yr deal, back in 2001, which means he could have been out of prison in 2003, instead he tried to blackmail the US government. 

I'll repeat, he hack US military computers in the weeks post 9/11, got offered a pretty decent deal by their standards, but more than he was willing to stomach, and he tried to blackmail his way out of it, with a bluff. 

He's now facing a trial, not an immediate sentence of 70 years. In order to justify his sentence, the Virginian prosecutors are going to have to prove this damage they allege he did. Which according to Mc Kinnon he didn't do. So at worst he's facing a trial. All this nonsense about Aspergers, 70 years prison time, unfair trials, is pure hyperbole and nonsense. 

Mc Kinnon's been making his defence in the media for nearly a decade. We've yet to actually see the prosecution case. According to Mc Kinnon, he was a sloppy hacker, who may have deleted "some files" . 

It's like someone saying they were "slightly over the speed limit" but then when the case comes to  court you discover they were caught doing 120mph  outside a school. _I am not saying Mc Kinnon is guilty_, but what we've seen and heard so far is so insanely one sided, and Mc Kinnon's defenders happily ignore some of the points (to wit the deal he was offered, the fact that he was hacking the Pentagon a few weeks after 9/11, and the fact that he tried to blackmail the US government to avoid prosecution), and instead they leap up and down and point out the injustice (It was a US computer in the US, doesn't matter, Mc Kinnon knew he'd face prosecution in the US if caught, before he started out), the Asperegers (A late development that was only discovered 8 years after the crime), and that he won't receive a fair trial like he would in the UK (to which I say, yeah cause the UK justice system has never pushed a political motivated conviction) and that Mc Kinnon's trial will be biased in the US (No evidence has been offered to support this nonsense).


----------



## Jonti (Jan 10, 2010)

Ah, no.

Computing symbols are essentially arbitrary. That makes it very uncool to allow any kind of extra-territorial jurisdiction over one's pecking on a keyboard.  

_The codes could mean anything, depending on the meaning assigned by the receiver_.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 10, 2010)

I thought all appeals had been exhausted. 

So unless there is some magic bullet of a public appeal of some kind he will be extradited.


----------



## 8den (Jan 10, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Ah, no.
> 
> Computing symbols are essentially arbitrary. That makes it very uncool to allow any kind of extra-territorial jurisdiction over one's pecking on a keyboard.
> 
> _The codes could mean anything, depending on the meaning assigned by the receiver_.



Computer symbols? Codes? What are you jibbering about? I think "coolness" and "uncoolness" isn't really the way the US military handles it's compute security.


Thats nice and all, however the US government have made it arbitrary that the US military computer systems are under American judicial control, and strict control at that. And post 9/11 they really weren't in a mood to be fucked with.  

Mc Kinnon knew what he was doing was illegal. He wasn't aware of the severity of the punishment he faced. It's like smuggling drugs into Saudi Arab, being fully aware that it's illegal and then complaining about the fact that you're facing the death penalty.

Don't forget he was offered a deal that could have seen him out of prison by 2003 or 2005 (maximum), and he tried to blackmail his way out of this.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 10, 2010)

> Computer symbols? Codes? What are you jibbering about?


 

Something essential to understanding this alleged "hacking" escapade, that you have failed to grasp, it seems.


----------



## 8den (Jan 10, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Something essential to understanding this alleged "hacking" escapade, that you have failed to grasp, it seems.



I'm a reasonably bright person, who understand a decent amount about computers. 

Computer symbols, and codes are completely meaningless and abstract terms that mean fuck all in this instance. 

It's not an "alleged" hacking escapade, even Mc Kinnon admits he was illegally accessing US military computers. Which is pretty much a dictionary definition of computer hacking. "Alleged hacking"? Fucking idiotic.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 10, 2010)

> Computer symbols, and codes are completely meaningless and abstract terms that mean fuck all in this instance.


... of accessing computers over the internet?

Can you explain what you mean, please? It seems to me the essence of the escapade would be to send instructions in symbolic computer code, for the target computers to execute.

How else?


----------



## spring-peeper (Jan 10, 2010)

8den said:


> I'm a reasonably bright person, who understand a decent amount about computers.
> 
> Computer symbols, and codes are completely meaningless and abstract terms that mean fuck all in this instance.
> 
> It's not an "alleged" hacking escapade, even Mc Kinnon admits he was illegally accessing US military computers. Which is pretty much a dictionary definition of computer hacking. "Alleged hacking"? Fucking idiotic.



I think that until a verdict gets handed down, it's an "alleged" crime.


----------



## 8den (Jan 10, 2010)

Jonti said:


> ... of accessing computers over the internet?



Illegally accessing a computer over a network, which Mc Kinnon admits to doing, is the definition of hacking. 



> Can you explain what you mean, please? It seems to me the essence of the escapade would be to send instructions in symbolic computer code, for the target computers to execute.
> 
> How else?



"Symbolic computer code" What the fuck are you jibbering about, I've seen more sensible dialogue in the Sandra Bullock movie "The Net". 

Mc Kinnon admits to accessing files, include court martial reports, and he admits to deleting files that could have deleted root commands. 

He also admits that his memory of these events are compromised by the amount of weed he was smoking at the time. 

The US government claim he compromised key systems, and caused damage that cancelled a $500,000 dollar war game. 

The argument isn't whether Mc Kinnon did or didn't hack, it's a question of what the implications of his hacks where to the US military's systems. 

Mc Kinnon didn't help himself by attempting at the start to blackmail his way out it, once he did this, there was no reason for the Americans to remotely trust him when he said what he did and didn't do. 

Gary admits his guilt, know's what he's doing was wrong before he started, knows that he faced criminal charges before he started, when caught he did the worst thing possible when faced with a plea bargain he was unhappy with. 

"Symbolic computer code" You haven't the first fucking clue what you are on about. Next you'll be telling us that the internet is a "series of tubes" Ted Olson style.


----------



## Jonti (Jan 10, 2010)

> Can you explain what you mean, please?


I'll take that as a "No", then


----------



## 8den (Jan 10, 2010)

spring-peeper said:


> I think that until a verdict gets handed down, it's an "alleged" crime.



To be pedantic technically when a plea is entered, if a guilty plea is entered, it's pretty much settled then and there. 

However consider no one in the Mc Kinnon campaign denies that he hacked US  military computers. Mc Kinnon has made several TV and Print interviews where he freely admitted hacking pentagon, NASA and DARPA computers, I think we can safely consider the "alleged" part as pretty much moot.


----------



## spring-peeper (Jan 10, 2010)

8den said:


> To be pedantic technically when a plea is entered, if a guilty plea is entered, it's pretty much settled then and there.
> 
> However consider no one in the Mc Kinnon campaign denies that he hacked US  military computers. Mc Kinnon has made several TV and Print interviews where he freely admitted hacking pentagon, NASA and DARPA computers, I think we can safely consider the "alleged" part as pretty much moot.



I know he did it.  

It's just that it has been drilled into my head that it is "alleged" until a judge has passed the verdict.

I'm still trying to get my head around the ""Symbolic computer code" concept.  I used to be a systems programmer, and have never heard that term.


----------



## 8den (Jan 10, 2010)

Jonti said:


> ... of accessing computers over the internet?
> 
> Can you explain what you mean, please? It seems to me the essence of the escapade would be to send instructions in symbolic computer code, for the target computers to execute.
> 
> How else?



Considering you're jibbering about "symbolic codes" and Symbols, which clearly means you know two things about hacking (That'd be "fuck" and "all"), you probably aren't qualified to start calling this an alleged crime. 

For fucks sake _he admits doing_, he's just moaning about the sentence. 

You and sabatical are what bug the living shit. He's _guilty_ he admits he's guilty. He knows what he did was illegal, and yet you try and make this out like it's some kind of bizarre outrageous misscarriage of justice!

Mc Kinnon knows he wasn't that clever, he also knows that what he did, while he was doing it was illegal. When he got caught, he tried to bluff his way out of it, and they came down on him like a tonne of bricks because at the time, they weren't in the mood to fuck about. 

Not very bright hacker, does something incredibly stupid, gets caught, and offered deal, tries to blackmail his way out of it, and makes matters worse. 

Blithering on about "code" and "symbolic code" is fucking nonsense, and makes you out to be a clueless numpity.


----------



## 8den (Jan 10, 2010)

spring-peeper said:


> I'm still trying to get my head around the ""Symbolic computer code" concept.  I used to be a systems programmer, and have never heard that term.



I think he's talking 18 kinds of shite and doesn't know how to stop digging. 

Don't think of it as someone who knows what they're talking about, think of Jonti as someone who watched the movie "Hackers" and thought it was a documentary.


----------



## spring-peeper (Jan 10, 2010)

sabatical said:


> No, he's being charged with 'hacking' THE US military site, there is a difference, the particular site is the most defended site they have, [how did anyone fly a plane into the most defended military buildings the Americans have, anywhere on the face of the earth,the Pentagon  ?  Or are some things allowable ? ].
> Being charged and being proven guilty are different things, he's may have been charged, but its not till he is in court that any plea will, be entered.
> And at that time the charge/s will be read out, if they are 'plea' bargaining, then the charge/s are not settled as yet.
> 
> ...



Sorry, just saw this - I wasn't ignoring you.  It's really hard to make heads or tails out of trying to answer properly because your responses were like mine - inserted between the lines of the quoted post.

I'll try....

First - the damage was done in the United States, not in the UK.  It's really nice that you feel that your country would ignore or possibly pat him on the back, but not in the US.

Second - Most court cases in the States and Canada are broadcast.  It's usually the cable companies.  I'm sure, however, that the British press will be there to tell the world about the case.

Lastly (and totally off topic, so this will be my only response on this issue)  - Afghanistan is a UN mission, Iraq is a total bullshit invasion dreamed up by a couple of bullying nations.  My country did not get involved.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 10, 2010)

sabatical said:


> It's obvious [the US prosecutors] would prefer a 'plea bargain', otherwise its all out in open court, so as far as Gary is concerned its in his interest to have a trial in Britain.


There's a _non sequitur_ in the middle of that sentence! It's like it started out for Wales, and decided mid-journey to switch direction to the Outer Hebrides. 

Plea bargains are standard procedure in the USA. They save the state the expense of a trial, and the accused the risk of serious jail time. Mr McKinnon is entitled to refuse, and be tried in open court. (Which he did; sort of.) Perhaps the US government would want secret info kept out of court, but that's not an unreasonable motive, and ultimately, it's in Mr McKinnon's hands. 


> And in this case, its British citizens being made to accept american law, as that is what they break to be extradited.
> 
> Yet no British citizen is involved in making American laws.
> 
> ...


No American citizen is involved in making British laws, either (unless they're a dual-citizen, and there's plenty of British-Americans, so yes, some British people are involved in making US laws). Extradition to a foreign jurisdiction has never relied on the participation of the accused in the foreign country's lawmaking process. Seems you reject extradition as a concept. Well fine, but you could've just come out and said so up-front. 


8den said:


> Once McKinnon released that he faced five years in prison, he attempted to blackmail and bluff his way out of getting punished. Over the past 8 years his campaign have come out with increasingly outlandlish claims (you're guilty of the worst of this) about he's going to get 70 years in prison, or that he wont' receive a fair trail. Neither of these claims have been supported with anything and substantive as facts.


Exactly. (And hats off for going through all the details of this case.  ) Mr McKinnon didn't, apparently, make more efforts to get the offered plea bargain in writing; he jumped straight to a spot of blackmail (and what the heck was a Virginia PD doing making the threat?!). I'm suspicious of his claim that they wouldn't give him any guarantees, from what little I know of US plea bargains. We only have his version of events. 

To illustrate how demented the 70 year claim is: under the English Theft Act, 1968, the maximum sentence for theft is seven years imprisonment. If we extradited an American citizen for 10 counts of theft, you could claim that he faced a 70 year sentence, but unless the earth reverses on its axis, there's no way he would ever get that. 


8den said:


> The alleged crime was committed on computers based on US soil.


Yep. The criminal act took place in the USA and Britain. There's dual-jurisdiction here. The damage occurred in the USA, to US government property. It makes sense that they get Mr McKinnon, unless criminal jurisdiction is limited to where the criminal is present, physically. I've yet to see anyone offer a convincing reason why this should be so, or explain what principle of justice is being violated by not having this narrow and literalistic standard.


----------



## sabatical (Jan 11, 2010)

8den said:


> You and sabatical are what bug the living shit. He's _guilty_ he admits he's guilty. He knows what he did was illegal, and yet you try and make this out like it's some kind of bizarre outrageous misscarriage of justice!.



Sabatical doesn't deny what Gary has admitted, but would like to see a trial in England, as the Americans would have to present all their evidence, which means that their 'secrets' - against national interest line would fail somewhat, and it would be edifying for people here to watch the entertainment.
Again how does a novice infiltrate when there are countries all over with serious computer experts trying all day long ?

They would have to explain how a novice hacker managed to 'infiltrate' their secret military computers.

[Such a trial would bring out the best brains on urban 75, who could give the country a running commentary, it could result in the biggest viewing figure for urban 75 since simon cowell last posted. ]

[ Do all these computer systems belong to the Americans, if not is any other entity also after him ---hacking pentagon, NASA and DARPA computers, ]

The other point is , the bastard treaty, one sided, is it really legal, as we all know that the government is into illegalities, even the monarch who likes to twitter about ''the rule of law'' was involved, the invasion of Iraq was not legal according to international law, irrespective of who decide to go there, all involved have broken international law.
This came out some time ago, with a revealing of an A four sheet of paper, with no legal basis according to Goldsmith, at that time the head of state had the right to intervene but abstained, which means her 'rule of law' twittering is just that -twit twit....and more twit.




8den said:


> Blithering on about "code" and "symbolic code" is fucking nonsense, and makes you out to be a clueless numpity.



Can someone post on some examples of ''code'' - symbolic code' ?


----------



## Azrael (Jan 12, 2010)

sabatical said:


> Sabatical doesn't deny what Gary has admitted, but would like to see a trial in England, as the Americans would have to present all their evidence, which means that their 'secrets' - against national interest line would fail somewhat, and it would be edifying for people here to watch the entertainment.


What are you basing this on? If you've gone and looked up the disclosure rules for the federal court Mr McKinnon would be tried in, I'm impressed. Let's have links. Otherwise, it's guesswork, rooted in assumptions about the US justice system. 

Come to that, on what are you basing your assumption that Washing will have to disclose all in an English court? Disclosure in England and Wales is governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, 1996. Section 3, subsection 6, allows a judge to issue an order suppressing evidence is it's "in the public interest". 


> The other point is , the bastard treaty, one sided, is it really legal, as we all know that the government is into illegalities [...]


So far as I remember, treaties are governed by the Royal Prerogative, which is broad. Anything to back these suspicious of illegality up?


----------



## sabatical (Jan 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> So far as I remember, treaties are governed by the Royal Prerogative, which is broad.



The Royal Prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity, recognized in common law and, sometimes, in civil law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy as belonging to the Sovereign alone.[1] It is the means by which some of the executive powers of government, possessed by and vested in a monarch with regard to the process of governance of their state, are carried out. Individual prerogatives can be abolished by Parliament, although in the United Kingdom special procedure applies.

United Kingdom  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative#United_Kingdom

Main article: Royal Prerogative (United Kingdom)  British dependencies
Generally, the crown retains all the power of the state in a crown colony (even if in practice it is not directly exercised). Thus the royal prerogative is in theory an unlimited, arbitrary authority[4]. In British overseas territories however, each inhabited territory has a constitution by which the territory is governed locally.

The absoluteness of the royal prerogative in the colonies was however defeated in the case of Campbell v. Hall, in 1774. Campbell v. Hall decided that once a colony gained a representative assembly (or once the governor has been instructed to call one) then the royal authority is limited to the familiar prerogatives; without the assembly's consent the Crown could not raise taxation nor change the law.

Several of the colonies of the British West Indies thus became "settled colonies", and reverted to "crown colony" status only by Act of Parliament in the nineteenth century.


This 'bastard treaty' was brought in by act of Parliment, it has nothing to do with 'royal prerogative'


----------



## sabatical (Jan 16, 2010)

Azrael said:


> What are you basing this on? If you've gone and looked up *the disclosure rules *for the federal court Mr McKinnon would be tried in, I'm impressed. Let's have links. Otherwise, it's guesswork, rooted in assumptions about the US justice system.



Disclosure rules  ? How about precedent ?

McKinnon: The longest ever game of pass the parcel
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/15/mckinnon_comment/

US authorities began extradition proceedings against McKinnon in 2005, three years after his initial arrest by UK detectives working for the former NHTCU over hacking attacks on Nasa and US military systems in the months before and after the 9/11 attacks. McKinnon has always admitted the attacks but has consistently denied causing any damage.
----
McKinnon is charged with hacking into 97 US military and NASA systems in an attack that allegedly crashed the network of the Naval Weapons Station Earle, New Jersey, for a week in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The US prosecution case claims that the hack interfered with the smooth running of the supply chain to the US Atlantic fleet normally provided by the base.
-----
Six years before McKinnon, reformed British computer hacker turned hypnotherapist Mathew Bevan was also charged with breaking into insecure US military computer systems, again motivated by a desire to uncover suppressed UFO-related evidence. Bevan's alleged crimes were cited as examples of cyberterrorism at Senate hearings in 1996.

Bevan, unlike McKinnon, was prosecuted in the UK and no attempt was made to extradite him to the US. The case against Bevan eventually collapsed after 18 months, when prosecutors decided not to proceed. Bevan's alleged accomplice Richard Pryce, then 16 years old, pleaded guilty to hacking offences and received a fine.

Aaron Caffrey was found not guilty by a jury in 2003 of launching a major electronic attack that floored the computer systems of the Port of Houston. The unsuccessful outcome of both cases arguably played a big part in the US decision to seek extradition in the McKinnon case.

Scores of people have pleaded guilty to Computer Misuse Act offences but no one has actually been convicted of hacking offences by a jury in the 20 years since the now amended CMA first became law. This may perhaps have been one reason why the US authorities have pursued extradition so doggedly.



Azrael said:


> Come to that, on what are you basing your assumption that Washing will have to disclose all in an English court? Disclosure in England and Wales is governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, 1996. Section 3, subsection 6, allows a judge to issue an order suppressing evidence is it's "in the public interest".



Yes 'in the public interest', but that is not what is of concern here, the interests of the USA are not public interest in Britain.

For the curious, who don't seem to understand the politics involved in the trial.

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1263406380.html

mtvmalta wrote: Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 05:58 pm (UTC) 

HURRAY AT LAST. Why is the British government is so abjectly enslaved to the USA independently of which party runs it? It behoves a friend to dissuade from strange adventures like Iraq, not blindly and meekly follow. It behoves a government to ensure its citizens are considered on par with their counterparts in any extradition treaty. 

This is obviously not the case vis-a-vis the UK-USA extradition arrangements. Why does the British Government treat its citizens like chattel. How else can I read this about Gary McKinnon when on the 26th of last August I read in Haaretz of the case of the Israeli hacker Ehud Tenenbaum. 

This latter gentleman is reported to have quite recently pleaded guilty in front of a New York USA court for his part in a hacking scheme concerned with bank-card fraud alleged to have netted some $10,000,000. 
The reports allege that he had been involved in something similar in Canada from where he was extradited to the US. 
The relevant part of the Haaretz coverage is reference to a case in 1998, when Ehud Tenenbaum, with several other Israelis and two California teenagers, were accused of hacking into computers belonging to NASA, the Pentagon and the Knesset. 
Israel refused to extradite him. 
He was instead prosecuted in Israel and eventually sentenced in 2001 for six months community service in Israel. 
It seems that Israel cares more for its citizens than Britain does, who treats them like chattel. 


Judge says extraditing Gary McKinnon may be unlawful

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/13/gary-mckinnon-hacking-extradition

The home secretary may have acted unlawfully by pursuing the extradition of the computer hacker Gary McKinnon, a high court judge said yesterday.
Extraditing McKinnon, an Asperger's sufferer who is facing a lengthy prison sentence in the US for breaching US military and Nasa computers, raises "stark and simple issues", Mr Justice Mitting said.

In a letter, the judge described medical evidence that McKinnon would be at high risk of suicide in an American jail as "as yet unchallenged and unqualified".
That evidence may require the home secretary "to refuse to surrender [McKinnon] to the government of the USA" Mitting said, in a letter yesterday. "It is arguable that the [home secretary's] decision was unlawful", the letter added.
--

As for the one sided or bastard treaty, go look up the history of the Inquisition, they also had a one sided treaty, they could extradite people from Catholic countries all over Europe, but the English declined to go along with it.
So they broke it, and decided never again, albeit, they had to kill lots of supporters of the Inquisitions treaty to achieve the position, but that's another story.

As for the Monarch and prerogative, it became a headless cause. Only a 'constitutional monarchy'.
.

-----


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 16, 2010)

Aspergers' isn't something you "suffer" from and it doesn't affect your ability to make mental judgements. Making this into some kind of "oh my god pity him he has a disease it wasn't his fault" not only further stigmatises the condition(s) but it is also just plain ridiculous.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 16, 2010)

sabatical I have to say, I just don't think people read posts that long.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 16, 2010)

I do, if they're good.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 17, 2010)

sabatical said:


> This 'bastard treaty' was brought in by act of Parliment, it has nothing to do with 'royal prerogative'


Right then, and Parliament has absolute sovereignty (which it awarded itself, of course, but the Crown's stopped arguing a century or three back). So why's the treaty of questionable legality? 





sabatical said:


> Scores of people have pleaded guilty to Computer Misuse Act offences but no one has actually been convicted of hacking offences by a jury in the 20 years since the now amended CMA first became law. This may perhaps have been one reason why the US authorities have pursued extradition so doggedly.


Or, if scores of people are pleading guilty, maybe it isn't. 

Mr McKinnon is entitled to a jury trial in the USA, with a unanimous verdict. So far as I know, his lawyer can examine the jury on _voir dire_ for bias. Unless you're alleging that Mr McKinnon's jury will somehow be packed, or that every potential juror will automatically convict a limey, I'm not seeing your point here. 


> Why does the British Government treat its citizens like chattel. How else can I read this about Gary McKinnon when on the 26th of last August I read in Haaretz of the case of the Israeli hacker Ehud Tenenbaum.


The old treaty required a prima facie case. Mr McKinnon has admitted that he committed the crimes as charged. Therefore he'd have been extradited before the new treaty was signed.


> In a letter, the judge described medical evidence that McKinnon would be at high risk of suicide in an American jail as "as yet unchallenged and unqualified".


I'd need to know what law/precedent this is based on. If it's the case, what about Asperger's sufferers sent to British gaols? 

And now it's 60 years, not 70. I know the British press is in the grip of hysteria about this, but is even consistency to much to ask for? 


> As for the one sided or bastard treaty, go look up the history of the Inquisition, they also had a one sided treaty, they could extradite people from Catholic countries all over Europe, but the English declined to go along with it.


Cardinal Biggles, the _prima facie_! 

Points for working the Holy Inquisition (first weapon is bogus treaties!) into the thread.


----------



## Azrael (Jan 17, 2010)

And "supermax" prison. The place the USA dumps the worst of the worst. Come on. Please. 23 hour a day lockdown over a computer hack? Evidence, please, someone?


----------



## Azrael (Jan 17, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Aspergers' isn't something you "suffer" from and it doesn't affect your ability to make mental judgements. Making this into some kind of "oh my god pity him he has a disease it wasn't his fault" not only further stigmatises the condition(s) but it is also just plain ridiculous.


Agreed. It's patronising to people with the condition, and has nasty authoritarian implications (if they're incapable of controlling their actions, it can be used to restrict their rights). 


weltweit said:


> sabatical I have to say, I just don't think people read posts that long.


If you make it to the end, you get the Spanish Inquisition!


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Apr 13, 2010)

Gary Mckinnon's mum, Janis is standing as a candidate  in Blackburn against Jack Straw
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/12/mckinnon_mum_parliament_run/


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 13, 2010)

dynamicbaddog said:


> Gary Mckinnon's mum, Janis is standing as a candidate  in Blackburn against Jack Straw
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/12/mckinnon_mum_parliament_run/



Good for her!!!

I've always said if you don't like something, change it.

It would seem that she is trying to do just that.


----------



## derf (Apr 13, 2010)

spring-peeper said:


> I've always said if you don't like something, change it.
> 
> It would seem that she is trying to do just that.



So did her son and now she's trying to get him off.
I wonder if he was smashing glass in bus shelters she would claim they should have been solid metal to stop fucking idiots.
Screw the daft cunt. He did it, admits to it and deserves whatever comes.

Imagine if the silly bastard had managed to hack something that told the US a missile strike was incoming. Jesus, what a fucking idiot.


----------



## Azrael (Apr 15, 2010)

derf said:


> I wonder if he was smashing glass in bus shelters she would claim they should have been solid metal to stop fucking idiots.


If it was American glass in American bus stations, wouldn't bet against it.


----------



## spring-peeper (Apr 15, 2010)

Azrael said:


> If it was American glass in American bus stations, wouldn't bet against it.



Americans are not stupid enough to put glass in the bus stations.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Aspergers' isn't something you "suffer" from and it doesn't affect your ability to make mental judgements. Making this into some kind of "oh my god pity him he has a disease it wasn't his fault" not only further stigmatises the condition(s) but it is also just plain ridiculous.



He shouldn't be supported because he has Aspergers. He should be supported because he made American security the laughing stock of the world and now they want to use the full might of their judiciary in some kind of ill-thought-out vengeful hissy fit when what they ought to be doing is thanking him for making them aware of the flaws.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 16, 2010)

They should be thankful that someone with no malice pointed out the glaring errors in their security.

These guys probably hack us all the fucking time! Whatever happens then they are found to be snooping improperly? Fuck all. That's the way they like it. But of course, they don't like it coming back the other way do they? Lock him up and throw the key away!


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Apr 27, 2010)

There's going to be a Free Gary protest - May 3rd Westminster Bridge at noon.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 27, 2010)

Fuck off derf.

What crime he did commit he committed whilst in the UK, using a computer in the UK and a UK internet connection. The fact that the crime was against the US is immaterial. If I dip a yank's pocket at Oxford Circus I can not be extradited to the US for it.

This man should be tried here and if found guilty should be spending 100 hours or so cleaning off graffiti or something, not languishing for the best part of the rest of his life in a US prison.


----------



## Streathamite (May 2, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Ah, no.
> 
> Computing symbols are essentially arbitrary.


yes, but the uses to which individuals may put them aren't. 


> That makes it very uncool to allow any kind of extra-territorial jurisdiction over one's pecking on a keyboard.


err, no, it makes SOME sort of regulatory or legislative regime even more essential. do you want redress over someone hacking your private details, or not?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (May 4, 2010)

I attended yesterdays balloon release on Westminster Bridge for Gary.
We certainly attracted a lot of attention and support (and a group of  teenage Italian tourists who helped us blow up some balloons in exchange for  a blast on the  helium)
A few snapshots here


----------



## noriise (May 16, 2010)

aren't the tories going to bin the extradition treaty?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7120657.ece

any news on this?


----------



## spring-peeper (May 16, 2010)

Here is a similar problem - this dude could spend over 50 years in jail and he never set foot inside the States, either.



> *Busted in Canada for breaking U.S. laws*
> 
> Emery was arrested in 2005 — following an investigation by Canadian and U.S. police — for allegedly selling marijuana seeds over the internet from Vancouver to residents of the U.S.
> 
> ...



source

(it's been a slow day)


----------



## grit (May 17, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Fuck off derf.
> 
> What crime he did commit he committed whilst in the UK, using a computer in the UK and a UK internet connection. The fact that the crime was against the US is immaterial. If I dip a yank's pocket at Oxford Circus I can not be extradited to the US for it.



Your analogy totally fails, as the "pocket" in this instance is on US soil (I agree with your sentiment but wanted to point that out). Gary's problem is not grass roots support in the UK its lack of support in the US, which unfortunately is where it matters in his case.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2010)

New home sec puts Judicial Review on hold to see if he's  fit enough.


----------



## moon23 (May 20, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> New home sec puts Judicial Review on hold to see if he's  fit enough.



This is good news.


----------



## smokedout (May 21, 2010)

spring-peeper said:


> Here is a similar problem - this dude could spend over 50 years in jail and he never set foot inside the States, either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mark Emery chucked quite a bit of money into the brixton cannabis festival back in the day

(which admittedly he could afford to cos he's very rich)


----------



## mattie (May 21, 2010)

As an aside, there's an article in the London Review of Books on rendition:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n09/gareth-peirce/americas-non-compliance


----------



## Azrael (May 23, 2010)

mattie said:


> As an aside, there's an article in the London Review of Books on rendition:
> 
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n09/gareth-peirce/americas-non-compliance


Selective anti-American rot from the _London Review of Books_. 

While the article makes a sop to admitting that our system ain't perfect (ya think?), there's a clear implication that, on balance, the USA lacks fundamental safeguards which we enjoy. 

God knows the US justice system is far from perfect. But what are its alleged sins? A failure to repeal the First Amendment so they can impose our draconian sub judice rules. No mention is made of the extensive _voir dire_ process used to question potential-jurors for bias. 

Rotten remand conditions in New York? Well, guilty doubtless: are these any worse than the Continental habit of locking people up for years pre-trial; or for that matter, the English habit of slinging remand prisoners into chaotic jungles alongside the convicted? No. 

The USA is taken to task for failing to submit itself to international inspections. Well, it's a sovereign nation, why on earth should it? Especially when these "inspections" come from the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, currently featuring judges from those human rights bastions of Mexico, Argentina, and the Dominican Republic on the bench. 

Locking people up without charge, including US citizens? Yes, very bad. Worse than banging them up in Belmarsh, followed by "control orders"? No. 

As US writers could rightly point out, these European judicial norms allow police to interrogate suspects for long periods without a lawyer present, lengthy "investigative detention" authorized by public prosecutors, and trials with no jury of any kind. "Investigative magistrates" pose no problem, nor do house searches without a warrant. Sweeping restrictions on free speech and the free press are a-OK in Euro land. It's a mark of how low our formerly proud common law tradition has sunk that we're nodding along to this blinkered smugness.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 26, 2010)

smokedout said:


> Mark Emery chucked quite a bit of money into the brixton cannabis festival back in the day
> 
> (which admittedly he could afford to cos he's very rich)



Mark turned himself into the Americans and got 5 years for selling seeds to Americans via his Canadian based website.

He will be serving his time in Canada.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 26, 2010)

It would appear that Clegg got it wrong.  Last year, he thought the government could stop Gary's extradition.  Now that Clegg is in power, he admits he was wrong.



> The Deputy Prime Minister said during a radio interview that he, the Home Secretary Theresa May nor even David Cameron might not have the power to halt an earlier court decision allowing him to be extradited.
> 
> His remarks appear to contrast with comments while in opposition that it was “completely within” the then Home Secretary Alan Johnson’s power to make changes to the law to allow him to be tried in Britain.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 26, 2010)

spring-peeper said:


> It would appear that Clegg got it wrong.  Last year, he thought the government could stop Gary's extradition.  Now that Clegg is in power, he admits he was wrong.



More like they don't want shit off the shermans.

The government could insist that the CPS prosecute here, then invoke autrefois convict/acquit and fuck Uncle Sam right off. But they won't


----------



## spring-peeper (May 26, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> More like they don't want shit off the shermans.
> 
> The government could insist that the CPS prosecute here, then invoke autrefois convict/acquit and fuck Uncle Sam right off. But they won't



I think that Clegg is learning the difference between being the opposition and being the government.


----------



## Meltingpot (May 26, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> He shouldn't be supported because he has Aspergers. He should be supported because he made American security the laughing stock of the world and now they want to use the full might of their judiciary in some kind of ill-thought-out vengeful hissy fit when what they ought to be doing is thanking him for making them aware of the flaws.



This.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 26, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The government could insist that the CPS prosecute here, then invoke autrefois convict/acquit and fuck Uncle Sam right off. But they won't



Of course not. Especially now they've just found out that they are going to be the major cheerleaders of the coming invasion of Iran.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Sep 8, 2010)

Gary's mum, Janis, will be interviewed on BBC London at 6.30pm tonight re-Review of the extraction treaty. Blunkett is now admitting that  by signing it he 'gave too much away' . But why did Labour sign it in first place? - fucking disgusting
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-09-08/uk-extradition-treaty-us.html


----------



## dynamicbaddog (May 1, 2011)

Looks like there  soon might be an announcement  whether there is going to be a U.K trial for Mckinnon 

http://samsungappstudio.com/mip/pre...838585&id=191463&check=1&z=1@1304263551570540


----------



## manny-p (May 1, 2011)

dynamicbaddog said:


> But why did Labour sign it in first place?



Sucking of american cock foreign policy at the time


----------



## IC3D (Oct 16, 2012)

Good luck Gary.


> Home secretary to announce whether British computer hacker will be sent to stand trial in US
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/16/gary-mckinnon-extradition-statement-commons


 
Heres hoping they are happy with Hamza and let this one slide


----------



## xes (Oct 16, 2012)

Yeah, good luck Gary. I hope sense prevails.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 16, 2012)

Sounds like it has!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 16, 2012)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sounds like it has!


 
Good news!


----------



## a_chap (Oct 16, 2012)

A rare bit of common sense from the government


----------



## xes (Oct 16, 2012)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sounds like it has!


No way!! 

Fucking rock on


----------



## Crispy (Oct 16, 2012)

About bloody time


----------



## Balbi (Oct 16, 2012)

Julian Assange furiously ordering fifty paracetamol and some gillete mach 3 blades on Ocado right now.


----------



## editor (Oct 16, 2012)

Sense at last. 



> British computer hacker Gary McKinnon will not be extradited to the US, Home Secretary Theresa May has announced.
> 
> Mr McKinnon, 46, who admits accessing US government computers but claims he was looking for evidence of UFOs, has been fighting extradition since 2002.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crispy (Oct 16, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Julian Assange furiously ordering fifty paracetamol and some gillete mach 3 blades on Ocado right now.


Nah mate


----------



## Balbi (Oct 16, 2012)

Yeah , not the time for more assange bashy fighty stuff. But I bet he'll use it.


----------



## TitanSound (Oct 16, 2012)

a_chap said:


> A rare bit of common sense from the government


 
Exactly. There's no way the US would extradite one of their own if we were chasing them. So fuck 'em!


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 16, 2012)

Awesome...and surprising.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 16, 2012)

Let's hope no one gets extradited from the UK to the USA to possibly face the death penalty


----------



## Meltingpot (Oct 16, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Awesome...and surprising.


 
Agreed, this is great news.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 16, 2012)

Great news - also strange to see Tories using Human Rights legislation when they usually complain about it


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

This decision  is based on the human rights act which the tories had a commitment in their election manifesto to get rid of.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 16, 2012)

Great campaign by his mother - she has really worked hard to keep up the pressure. Well done Janis Sharp.


----------



## silverfish (Oct 16, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Awesome...and surprising.


 
This x 5


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 16, 2012)

Great news for Gary.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 16, 2012)

And great news for UFO conspiracy nuts generally.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This decision is based on the human rights act which the tories had a commitment in their election manifesto to get rid of.


 
Somewhat misleading.

The decision seems to be based on the fact that his human rights would have been breached but not a specific part of the HRA, which some tories wanted to replace with a British Bill of Rights to make it easier to deport foreign criminals, not give prisoners the vote ... etc. It's unlikely to have changed anything in this case.

The government's done well here.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Somewhat misleading.
> 
> The decision seems to be based on the fact that his human rights would have been breached but not a specific part of the HRA, which some tories wanted to replace with a British Bill of Rights to make it easier to deport foreign criminals, not give prisoners the vote ... etc. It's unlikely to have changed anything in this case.
> 
> The government's done well here.


So you're saying the decision was based on the HRA. Which the Tory 2010 manifesto contained a commitment to get rid of. So exactly what i said. So what's misleading?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 16, 2012)

I wonder what concessions were made in the background to get McKinnon off the hook.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 16, 2012)

good news for Mckinnon. Part of me thinks the US have got the one they really wanted so are prepared to look cross over Mckinnon.


----------



## TitanSound (Oct 16, 2012)

8ball said:


> I wonder what concessions were made in the background to get McKinnon off the hook.


 
Very droll


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

Who is he working for now then?


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 16, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Somewhat misleading.
> 
> The decision seems to be based on the fact that his human rights would have been breached but not a specific part of the HRA, which some tories wanted to replace with a British Bill of Rights to make it easier to deport foreign criminals, not give prisoners the vote ... etc. It's unlikely to have changed anything in this case.
> 
> The government's done well here.


 
Not misleading at all, from the BBC page .....
Mrs May said: "Since I came into office, the sole issue on which I have been required to make a decision *is whether Mr McKinnon's extradition to the United States would breach his human rights*."

The legal statute protecting his human rights is the HRA, the same HRA that May and her pals wanted, as has been pointed out, removed from the statuite books. There is nothing misleading in mentioning this at all.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So you're saying the decision was based on the HRA. Which the Tory 2010 manifesto contained a commitment to get rid of. So exactly what i said. So what's misleading?


 
The point being that the way you presented it suggested _no more human rights legislation _as opposed to "current HR legislation being replaced by _different_ HR legislation", and that different legislation would have unlikely affected this case.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> The legal statute protecting his human rights is the HRA, the same HRA that May and her pals wanted, as has been pointed out, removed from the statuite books ....


 
... and replaced with a bill of rights. See above.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> The point being that the way you presented it suggested _no more human rights legislation _as opposed to "current HR legislation being replaced by _different_ HR legislation", and that different legislation would have unlikely affected this case.


Oh come on.


----------



## kittyP (Oct 16, 2012)

Woop woop is what I have to say about this


----------



## IC3D (Oct 16, 2012)

I find the timing interesting in relation to Hamza who had been waiting years as well to find out if he was off


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 16, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> ... and replaced with a bill of rights. See above.


 
Yes and, May used the HRA to refuse his extradition, the very same HRA she condemned for the lie she made about a man having a cat. May made clear she wanted to remove the HRA, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have something different in it's place, no-one said or implied that.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Oh come on.


 
So you weren't seeking to imply that the government couldn't have used legislation to tell the Yanks to fuck off, had they ditched the HRA?


----------



## cesare (Oct 16, 2012)

Interesting commmentary from DAG:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/10/gary-mckinnon


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> So you weren't seeking to imply that the government couldn't have used legislation to tell the Yanks to fuck off, had they ditched the HRA?


Of course i wasn't. I was suggesting that she was happy to use the existing specific legislation whilst slagging it off, thus exposing her hypocrisy. Whether any future bill of rights would instantiate the same reasons for the decision are neither here nor there and certainly not in my thoughts. What an odd exchange.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2012)

Ok. I got the wrong end of the stick.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 16, 2012)

I am well pleased with this, about fucking time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 16, 2012)

Brilliant news. 

Nowhere near enough wrt the disgraceful extradition treaty that the UK now has with the US (one that is not reciprocal as it is unconstitutional in the US to extradite on the terms the UK agreed to). But a start.

Bizarre to hear Alan Johnson slagging the decision off. Cunt.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Oct 16, 2012)

IC3D said:


> I find the timing interesting in relation to Hamza who had been waiting years as well to find out if he was off


 
Me too.


----------



## captainmission (Oct 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This decision is based on the human rights act which the tories had a commitment in their election manifesto to get rid of.


 
Well no, the decision was based on political pandering and wanting to avoid bad press. I don't doubt that if they'd wanted to the government could have got this extradition pass the courts without much problem; his legal case was weak at best. 

Although that said its always good to point out the tories for being a much of loathsome hypocritical cunts when the opportunity arises.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

captainmission said:


> Well no, the decision was based on political pandering and wanting to avoid bad press. I don't doubt that if they'd wanted to the government could have got this extradition pass the courts without much problem; his legal case was weak at best.
> 
> Although that said its always good to point out the tories for being a much of loathsome hypocritical cunts when the opportunity arises.


No, not no. What was the legal basis for the decision?


----------



## captainmission (Oct 16, 2012)

She's not actually stated the legal basis on which this has been done. She' only stated that



> As the house would expect, I have very carefully considered the representations made on Mr McKinnon's behalf, including from a number of clinicians. I have obtained my own medical advice from practitioners recommended to me by the chief medical officer. And I have taken extensive legal advice.
> After careful consideration of all of the relevant material, I have concluded that Mr McKinnon's extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon's human rights.
> I have therefore withdrawn the extradition order against Mr McKinnon.


 
Unless the government wishes to maintain its acting ultra vires, then they'll be relying on article 3 of HRA.

But if you want to be a needlessly pedantic arse (which you do) your statement was that this decision was based on the HRA- so yes, no. The legal justification for the deiscion is article 3. Its certainly not the basis for it.


----------



## keybored (Oct 16, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Let's hope no one gets extradited from the UK to the USA to possibly face the death penalty


I think the UK don't extradite anyone if there's any possibility the death penalty could be imposed.


----------



## Meltingpot (Oct 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Brilliant news.
> 
> Nowhere near enough wrt the disgraceful extradition treaty that the UK now has with the US (one that is not reciprocal as it is unconstitutional in the US to extradite on the terms the UK agreed to). But a start.
> 
> *Bizarre to hear Alan Johnson slagging the decision off. Cunt.*


 
I'm glad I didn't hear that, it's New Labour all over.


----------



## Corax (Oct 16, 2012)

Never thought I'd ever want to high-five Theresa May.

I expect the decision was as coldly self-serving as every other that a politician makes, but I'm very happy with it nonetheless.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 16, 2012)

I am happy cos it really pisses off Andy newman


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 16, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> I am happy cos it really pisses off Andy newman


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 16, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


>


if you can be arsed do a search on socialist unity. AN rather bizzarely has published a number of posts in which he defends the extradition of mckinnon, whilst simultaneously opposing all attempts to extradite assange and any number of terror suspects. In the case of McKinnon, AN argues that the US judicial system is fair and un biased and McKinnon is guarranteed a fair trial. the posts are even more bizarre than his aircraft carrier porn


----------



## smokedout (Oct 16, 2012)

good news, there's others in the same boat who deserve support: http://juliasblog-the-fight-of-our-lives.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## Flanflinger (Oct 17, 2012)

So he'll no longer be a suicide risk.

Good news.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 17, 2012)

> I have concluded that Mr McKinnon's extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon's human rights.




So where does this leave Shrien Dewani? If sent to SA there's an almost 100% certainty he'll be subjected to 'slow puncture' before he even gets to trial.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 24, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So where does this leave Shrien Dewani? If sent to SA there's an almost 100% certainty he'll be subjected to 'slow puncture' before he even gets to trial.


 
The difference being that Gary was in the UK when his alleged crime was committed, so really was a crime committed here even if it was against another nation, where as Shrien was in South Africa when his alleged crime took place so is for SA to deal with. 

But yeah,



> _I have concluded that Mr McKinnon's extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon's human rights._


 
is similar in both cases.


----------

