Support Gary McKinnon

[Callum91]

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]

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

bleurgh.

 

[Bakunin]

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]

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]

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]

Unfortunately thats the truth.

 

[spring-peeper]

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]

^^

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

Ah just remembered you are

 

[Bakunin]

Are you Canadian?

Nah, I'm a Brit.

 

[London_Calling]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 . . .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.