Slashdot Mirror
Domain: freegary.org.uk
Stories and comments across the archive that link to freegary.org.uk.
Comments · 6
-
Gary McKinnon wants
His intellectual property back.
What is it with the US gov and the use of MS like default passwords?
http://freegary.org.uk/ -
Re:Ohm's Law?
Here is one more:
(4) If you are not in the US, US law does not apply.Tell that to Gary McKinnon and Hew Raymond Griffiths.
-
Re:Location location, location...
Bear in mind that the extradition treaty is an expresson of sovereign will enabled by an Act of Parliament introduced in the democratically elected and accountable-to-the-voters House of Commons.
So, the undermining of UK sovereignty was a sovereign decision, as with any other treaty that constrains the executive or judicial system, or which delegates sovereignty to some extranational body like the European Union or Council of Europe. Unless there is a conflict with other strong expressions of sovereignty ("entrenched statute and practice", i.e, the Constitution) there is no issue of erosion.
There were arguments raised in the past (Soering v United Kingdom 11 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989); Bermingham, Mulgrew & Darby * - v - Director of Serious Fraud Office and The Attorney General (HCJ Judicial Review 2004, appeals to CA and ECHR denied)) that the treaty was unconstitutional on its face; these were rejected by the Court of Appeal for the United Kingdom, and by the European Court of Human Rights. The general thrust of the rulings is that if there is prima facie a case to answer, and a valid extradition treaty and process, and the extradition is to a state generally recognized as democratic, with an independent judicial system upholding the rule of law, then there is no constitutional impediment to extradition to be found in human rights law provided that the punishments faced are broadly in line with Council of Europe standards.
That is not to say that the treaty is a good one, or that the entire electorate (or House of Commons, or Parliament) supports the one-sided nature of extraditions for crimes that rely upon some degree extraterritorial jurisdiction, the low bar on evidence (there merely has to be enough to warrant a trial), or the long long long period of waiting in partial custody in the USA for a trial date as in the case of the Natwest Three. It is also not clear that the USA is universally regarded as having a particularly fair judicial system ( cf http://freegary.org.uk/ ), but then McKinnon is not a black man facing a capital crime trial in the Texas state courts.
If you feel like helping change the minds of the electorate and some future democratically accountable government, feel free to make a donation to http://liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ or pointing your UK-resident friends at it.
-
More information on ...Free Gary McKinnon (blog)
From the blog:
About this blog
This blog website is intended to support British citizen Gary McKinnon, who is facing "fast track" extradition to the USA (after over three four years since his initial arrest !).
Gary was indicted by a US court in November 2002, accused of "hacking" into over 90 US Military computer systems from here in the UK.
The unjust treatment of British citizens (and others) when facing the might of the US Military "justice" sysem, which practices detention without trial in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, and stands accused of making use of torture by allied regimes ("extraordinary rendition") is an ongoing scandal. It cannot be excused even by a "war on terror".
It seems only just that Gary should face any charges in a British court, and to serve any sentence, if he is found guilty, in a British prison.
Wikipedia Entry: Wikipedia entry for McKinnon Synopsis: Gary McKinnon, also known as Solo, (born in Glasgow in 1966) is a British hacker accused by the United States of perpetrating the "biggest military computer hack of all time." Following legal hearings in the UK it was decided in July 2006 that he should be extradited to the United States. In February 2007 his lawyers argued against this ruling in an appeal to the High Court in London [1], which was turned down on April 3 [2].
Interview (Saturday July 9, 2005)
From what I just read, he just looks like a typical nerd who is good at hacking systems.
I think that once again, the judge didn't realize how this represents a violation of human rights and the plaintiffs should bring more proofs of their accusations before to proceed, I am no pro-terrorist, but it is not because you are the army that you should have the right to bring people outside of civil courts (remember Guantanamo Bay and people who were falsely accused, remember the so-called WMD that we never found), unless you have real reasons to conclude that he is a threat and did sell/use information he collected.
It is much more of an infamy to use such reasons to bring him outside of a civil court using the deaths of the 9/11 than to let him go.
Though, I would be totally fine with a prison sentence -
Re:New Face
>...or some other place where the laws of the U.S. are not particularly respected.
Obviously not the uk, then. -
Re:Interview Transcript and Article.
Take a look at http://www.spy.org.uk/freegary/ (also adressable via http://freegary.org.uk/ ). It is a "blog website intended to support British citizen Gary McKinnon, who is facing "fast track" extradition to the USA (after over two and a half years since his initial arrest !)."