UK Gives Go-Ahead to Gary McKinnon Extradition

robzster1977 writes "Judges in the UK have given the go-ahead to the extradition of UK hacker Gary McKinnon. McKinnon is accused of breaking into US Navy, Army and Department of Defense computers in 2001 and 2002." From the article: "On 4 July the secretary of state signed an order for Mr McKinnon's extradition to the United States for charges connected with computer hacking. Mr McKinnon had exercised his right to submit representations against return but the secretary of state did not consider the issues raised availed Mr McKinnon."

Comments

good

[mr_tommy]

One finds it hard to disagree with the judgement that a hacker who illegally breaks into someone's system should face jail time. Regardless of his supposed hunt (and his curiously as yet un-proven discovery) of UFO technology, or the dubious figures of damages the US government produced, what he did was wrong. The problem really lies in the way we in the UK have implemented extradition legislation to the US. Evidence is not required going one way - UK -> USA - but is the other, as congress has yet to ratify / pass the law. This seems remarkably un-fair on British citizens, and in this sense, you can understand his frustration - and that of others - note the so called Natwest 3 who appear to be heading off to western shores in the near future.

Re:good

[Petrushka]

It was Queenie herself who signed the law agreeing to the extradition treaty.

Just for reference -- I'm sure there are those who don't know -- Queenie herself signs all the parliamentary laws in the UK. (Though it's also worth pointing out that the last time a British monarch got away with refusing to sign one was in 1708.)

That applies here how?

[Chmcginn]

When a cop, dressed like a hooker, comes up to you and smiles pretty, and you offer her money, that's not entrapment.

When a cop, dressed like a hooker, comes up to you and says, "Two hundred for the night", and you try to haggle, that is entrapment.

Do you see the critical difference?

Re:Uhhhh...

[kkiller]

You do realize that if McKinnon had hacked French computers, the French would have extradited him in exactly the same manner?

Not quite.

The point missed by many of the posters in this thread is that the UK has a stupidly unfair extradition treaty with the US, allowing the US to gain the extradition of a suspect using no evidence of the suspect's involvment in the case. Ostensibly, the treaty was an anti-terrorist measure. We now see it being used against suspected hackers and in bank fraud cases.

And in case you were wondering, the US Congress has (sensibly) not ratified the treaty, meaning no reciprocal arrangement exists for UK suspects to be brought over from the US without evidence.

Re:I am stunned by this

[timcowlishaw]

If you live in his constituency (Airdrie and Shotts.), you can try Here [theyworkforyou.com].

Otherwise, find your MP on theyworkforyou.com, and write to them, explaining why you think it was the wrong decision, how it affects you, enlighten them on some of the technical issues if necessary, and request that they ask a question of John Reid or Blair in Parliament.

Writing direct to someone else's MP (even if they are the Home Secretary) is rarely succesful. Get your own elected representative to do teh talking for you.

Re:The trick is...

[GigG]

Even for mild offences like check kiting, or smoking dope. Whatever your sentence is you have to add being raped several times a week to it.
That's what passes for law and order here. Being raped for all crimes no matter how minor.

Prison rape isn't as prevalent as you might think. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svrca04.htm Though I wouldn't want to be in the .3% that it does happen to. For that matter I don't want to be in the other 99.7% either.