Slashdot Mirror
In UK, Hacker Demands New Government Block Extradition
Stoobalou writes "Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon has called on the newly elected British government to put its money where its mouth is and tear up his extradition order. US prosecutors have been trying to get McKinnon before a New Jersey court for seven years after they caught him hacking into US military and NASA computers looking for evidence of UFOs. David Cameron, the newly elected prime minister, and Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, had both voiced their support for McKinnon's campaign against extradition. Other ministers in the coalition government had branded the extradition unjust. Clegg had even joined McKinnon's mother, Janis Sharp, on a protest march."
Expecting politicians to turn vague electioneering rhetoric into actual action.
McKinnons case will be quietly shuffled off to some under secretary to "look into" and once the media have lost interest he'll be on a plane to Dulles.
Say he fired a cruise missile at the whitehouse from the UK should he be tried in the UK?
Obviously, yes.
However I see the structure in your sentence implies the answer might be "No". And answer I can't even imagine.
Now I'm interested in anyone's explanation on why would someone have to face a legal process that's not of his country.
I'd welcome any other similar example too. Paying another country's taxes, electing another country's president (Ok, forget that last one if you're CIA).
Whilst it's undeniable I think that he did actual do it, there are a lot of people that cannot see why he should be extradited. The UK already has adaquate laws for the prosecution of the crime, and the crime was committed in the UK so it has always seemed odd to a lot of people that he should have been extradited, especially with the massive imbalance in potential sentence between the UK and US for this. I rather suspect that that imbalance is what causes many people much disquiet.
Cameron is not going to be too concerned either way one suspects, although he will probably lean towards not extraditing him. Clegg however as a hard and a fast Liberal is almost certainly going to move all that he can to ensure he is not extradited. The one person to consider though in all this is Kenneth Clarke, whos is the Justice Secretary. He has interesting views - he once called Camerons plans for a British Bill of Rights "Xenophobic and a legal nonsensity". Quite what his feelings are on the extradition - and he gets the ultimate say as Justice Minister are as yet unknown. From what little I know of him personally I suspect he would favour prosecution in the UK but for all that his views are relatively unknown.
I'd welcome any other similar example too. Paying another country's taxes,
American expats are the only nationals in the world who have to pay income tax to their country of citizenship even when they have lived on foreign soil for decades.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The treaty was written and signed to combat terrorism. Is he a terrorist? I doubt it. Is it worth the cost to get him to the US to be tried? I doubt that too. For fuck sake go after the real terrorists rather than a misguided individual with a mental disorder who believes in aliens. FFS the US should be thanking him for finding security flaws and not selling them to someone else. In this case I say FUCK THE TREATY!
Now I'm interested in anyone's explanation on why would someone have to face a legal process that's not of his country.
It depends on the rules of court for claiming jurisdiction, often jurisdiction is extended to the place where an offence is committed. This is not necessarily where the accused was at the time of the offence, as in this case, where, depending on the relevant law, the offence, at law, may have been committed where the "break-in" occurred.
As regards extradition, where I am .au, and I imagine in the UK too (since we share much of the same law on questions like these), an extradition should be granted only for an offence recognised by local (ie the country granting the request) law, and for which the punishment would not be considered unduly harsh by the standards of the local country. Thus most countries won't extradite (or even cooperate with supplying evidence) if there is a possibility that the state will execute the individual.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
If I performed a criminal act, I can reasonably expect to be tried in the country where the crime was performed as the laws of that country were violated.
Seeing that McKinnon performed the "crime" of "breaking" (bad security is no security, therefore he did not break any security) into government computers in his home country, not inside the U.S., he needs to be put on trial in his home country.
In addition, the U.S. has shown to have completely no respect for human rights. So, he can reasonably be expected to be exposed to torture. Why would this guy be sent off to a strange country to stand "trial" for a crime he did not commit? I can imagine he'll just disappear once he enters the U.S.
Lib Dems are big on civil liberties, Conservatives will want to both undermine Labour and show themselves to be strong.
Blocking the extradition would give both leaders brownie points with their own MPs. They'll want to stifle any murmurs of discontent from MPs who weren't to happy at their leaders 'selling out' their core values to get in power.
But there is a special treaty between the US and the UK that makes it easier. The last I heard, the US hadn't gotten around to ratifying its half of the agreement though, so it is one direction only, but it has been only seven years or so. Anyone got an update?
If I performed a criminal act, I can reasonably expect to be tried in the country where the crime was performed as the laws of that country were violated.
Crimes are committed rather than performed, but yes, exactly.
Seeing that McKinnon performed the "crime" of "breaking" (bad security is no security, therefore he did not break any security) into government computers in his home country, not inside the U.S., he needs to be put on trial in his home country.
The question of where the crime was committed might be a little more complicated than you imagine. One suspects that McKinnon, while physically located in the UK, committed the crime in the US. The things you can do with the internets!
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
... then how are they going to know how much you earn anyway? Surely you could just tell them anything and end up paying little or no tax?
In my experience, that's what usually seems to happen: people just ignore this law because it's almost impossible to enforce in many cases.
The exception is where the person still has a significant legal connection with the U.S. -- for instance, someone who works for a U.S. company in one of their foreign offices, and is paid by the U.S. arm of the company. Even in that case, there's a pretty large exemption on which you don't have to pay U.S. taxes, which pretty much covers your entire salary unless you're very well paid.
Because of the large exemption, the IRS also has little incentive to even try to enforce the law unless you're an executive or something and they suspect you have a substantial salary.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Now I'm interested in anyone's explanation on why would someone have to face a legal process that's not of his country.
As one example, you might want to consider the the principle that forms the basis of war crimes tribunals.
Then, of course, there's the Polanski case ...
Even here, in the UK, it's against the law to gain unauthorized access to a computer system.
The issue here isn't what he did and where, it's a question of excessive and inhumane punishment. In the UK, he'd be expected to get maybe 2 years in a minimum security prison, probably with an order preventing internet access for a couple of years, maybe a fine or some form of remuneration to the US gooberment. In the US, he faces fifty years in your oh so popular Federal PMITA prison system.
Remember: He fully admitted breaching the systems described; He had no malicious intent, he was investigating UFO cover-ups; He has recently been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome, and professional medical opinion is that he will fulfil his stated intention to commit suicide if extradited to the US for trial; The access he obtained was extremely easy to obtain, and would most likely have been abused by a malicious attacker had it not been discovered by Garry's actions.
Garry is guilty of illegally accessing government computer systems in the US, but the sentencing guidelines would put him at at least 70 years old when he is released. There are no words for how inappropriate that is.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
BBZZZTTT, WRONG! Australians also have to pay income tax to the Aaustralian tax office even though the don't live there or use any of the services that income tax provides.
unfair and stupid, yes.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Lets say that I send information about bypassing censorship to someone living in China. Should I be sent to China to be prosecuted about this? Of course not: The deed should be judged based on the laws of the country where I was when I committed the deed. Even if the target is in another country.
Now, you can say "But that isn't illegal in the country in which you live. It is different.". I don't think that changes anything (because it still means that I should be judged by the country in which I am) but let's look at another example where this isn't the case.
Let's say I download the latest blockbuster movie through the bittorrent network. It is illegal here and it is illegal in the USA. Most likely the company that owns the rights to the movie is in USA and it might even be that some of the people I downloaded the movie from (for simplicty's sake, let's even say that all of them) could be located in the USA. Does that mean that I should be sent to USA to be prosecuted instead of being prosecuted by them in the justice system of this country? I certainly don't see the logic here.
The guy lives in UK and was in UK when the crime was committed. As such, can you explain why he should be sent to USA to be prosecuted instead of being trialed in the UK, in a way that is also consistent on your views about the two examples I gave. Naturally, if you disagree with me (that the people in those examples should be sent to China and USA respectively), it becomes a very easy task.
If they commit the crime abroad and against a citizen of another state I guess the local justice can do what the fuck they want. And the foreigner traditionally does not have the same level of protection of a citizen. For this reason treaties are signed that allow him to contact his embassy, for example, have a right to an interpreter, etc. But without a treaty whoever has him in their hands can try him.
Also, one's own country could be too light on punishment with that, or could have no laws against the particular crime. For example Vatican does not recognize some financial crimes, so that their citizens (like cardinals) are not punished for those. Another country that seldom punishes his citizens for crimes committed abroad is the US, especially when the responsible is a military. There is a long list of complaints against US bases around the world for this reason. The US have convicted and imprisoned many foreigners in their history. On the opposite side, in one recent case a US citizen was convicted in Italy for killing an British citizen, and the US acknowledged that the trial was fair.
Finally, if one's own country is not democratic and does not respect human rights, my government should *never* send anyone there. If they commit crimes they will be tried where they can defend themselves.
So there *are* reasons for not trying a person in his own country, sometimes, and each case is different.
Because of the large exemption, the IRS also has little incentive to even try to enforce the law unless you're an executive or something and they suspect you have a substantial salary.
Except for recent rules where expats are required to report any foreign bank account with more than $10K and failure to do so can result in serious penalties.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
This is what happened to the NatWest Three, a UK based offence against a UK bank. Of course they were extradited to Texas where it was felt they could hit them with more offences for longer sentencing and with an easier conviction (of course there is a huge tinfoil hat conspiracy regarding using these as fall guys in a forced plea bargain to cover up Bush administration involvement in the Enron scandal but that is an argument for another day)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030041_en_1
If you were located in Saudi Arabia at the time you did it, sure. Otherwise it is up to the Saudi people to ensure they don't import anything from other countries which is illegal in their own. Just like it's not legal to import legally purchased canabis from Holland into most other countries.
Most of these laws were written a long time ago by people with no understanding of technology, so they don't take into account that someone can cause illegal activity to take place half way across the world without requiring a local agent in that area to carry out the crime on their behalf.
I wonder what the legal status of remotely controlled weapons being operated from a different country would be...
As for crimes committed in war, it is the dominant side who decides whats legal and whats not, the laws of the losing side don't count for anything because they're no longer in a position to enforce them.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I think lots and lots of community service, fixing PC's for the elderly or refurbishing PC's the low income earners, is the right way to go with non violent crimes like this, which frankly are pretty victimless.
5 years doing helpdesk support every weekend for free would cure him of any urges to break into other computers. hell he'd probably vomit at the sight of a pc after that.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
that's the problem in this case. Under the new 'fast track' extradidion, a British court never gets to consider whether there is evidence to justify the charge.
That's important in this case, because although Gary admits that he hacked the computers, the key point is what level of damage he did. There is a strong implication that the damage numbers were concocted in order to meet the threshhold required to justify extradition.
Essentially, in order for the extradition to work, the US have to state damages above a certain level. Gary's team contest that the $700k damages alleged were simply concocted to meet this level.
Given that Gary hacked into computers that just had the default windows password set - and that the damage was calculated by figuring the cost to audit and fix this breach, there is at least an argument that this should have been done anyway, and isn't damage caused by Gary.
Unfortunately, Gary doesn't get to make that argument until after extradition.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
If they break into the car/house without doing any damage its a petty crime. A crime yes, but a minor one. Not something you extradite people for with anti terrorism laws exactly.
HTTP/1.1 400
actually, the max sentence in the UK at the time of the offence would be 6 months. (according to wikipedia anyway)
-and given that this was low tech hacking (just using default passwords and not damaging stuff), he might get off with a slap on the wrist.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
What is the difference between hacking the Pentagon because you believe in aliens and hacking the Pentagon because you believe in Allah?
Everything.
While the mechanics of cracking system security may be the same, what you intend to do with the information you uncover, and your broader intentions against the US (if any) are very different.
In the case of Aliens, you're not exactly looking to fly planes into buildings, blow up cars in Times Square, or behead journalists. In the case of Allah, these intentions have already been demonstrated rather unequivocally in the real world, so extrapolating threats based on variations of past performance is not unreasonable, nor likely to yield broadly inaccurate predictions. Until flying-saucer nuts start threatening non-believers with death and mayhem, I'll tend to treat them as harmless eccentrics rather than potential terrorists, even when they cross the line and stupidly try to break into military computers.
There's absolutely no reason for the US to go after this guy--he's got a mental disorder, has already been severely chastened for his actions, is clearly not a threat to the US (or anyone else), and isn't likely to survive the so-called 'justice' America has in store for him.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
It seems to make it reasonably okay to me. The point of the law isn't to be a set of rules that exists solely for the point of having rules, like some sort of game-theory problem or videogame diversion, but to keep society reasonably in order. On the list of things that cause significant problems for society, and which are worth allocating resources and authority to stop, a crackpot trying to find UFO evidence is pretty low; the only real damage such a person causes is essentially accidental, and doesn't seem worth extraditing someone to another country or jailing them for decades over (even if you're purely selfish: remember, jailing people for decades costs you lots and lots of money).
I'd say the proper response to a slightly crazy person breaking into computers to find UFO evidence is to institutionalize them for some period, and then try to wean them back into society, probably while keeping their computer use restricted or monitored initially.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
From what I have read of UK law interpretation a GROSSLY simplistic overview;
A citizen of a country is required to conform by the rules of that country. In return for complying with the rules that citizen is offered protections by his country to which he is a member - and is subject to punishment if he does not comply with the laws of his country.
Country's, however, can be seen as legal "persons" in their own right. as can a government agency, a company (corporation) and verious other groups of individuals.
If a British citizen were to commit a crime in the U.S.: the Brit has essentially committed a crime against the U.S. as a legal person, since his victim was under protection from the United States.
The united states could now complain to the U.K.
The U.K can then if requested, Extradite the citizen: - essentially relinquishing protection for it's citizen. By relinquishing its protection it is compensating the United States as well as sending a message that this criminal action was done by a "rouge individual" rather than the country itself.
If the U.K refuse to extradite they are essentially condoning the criminal action upon which the U.K. becomes the injuring party and the U.S. becomes the injured party.
Options now for the British would be to make a monetary reparation (as frequently happens for war reparations / covert operations), come to an informal agreement (possibly by offering to encarcerate the British criminal on British soil), or simply do nothing (a good example of doing nothing is the American drone attacks in Pakistani territory). It is also entireley possible for the injured country to declare was on the injuring country (This was the precedent for the war in Afghanistan)
It is important to note here that should the British Citizen who actually committed the criminal offence be tried he is being tried (and potentially punished) for the damage he has done to the U.K. and NOT the U.S.
As can be seen in the case of McKinnon it does not matter where he was physically, his attack was against the United States - and since he is a British citizen it is up to the British government to decide whether to extradite him.
this concept is not limited to serious crimes. TECHNICALLY China could demand the extradition of a western journalist for writing a piece inflammatory to China, and America could request the extradition of a British citizen for littering. the only difference is the former would almost certainly be thrown out before it had any chance of making it past junior civil servants, and the latter would cost far more than could be justified to the American people.
Personally, I hope that (being a patriotic Brit) that they do not extradite him and instead seek other means of coming to an agreement - but that is my opinion and I made that clear along with my other opinions on election day.
As I recall it, he did not really hack into anything. There was no security system in place that prevented him from gaining access, he did not have to write any sort of code, he was just browsing around a network that was supposed to be internal.
Personally, I wonder why the people who failed to secure that network, which supposedly contains sensitive information, are not on trial.
Palm trees and 8
The military computer had no password protection, so this guy "hacked" nothing. He is not a hacker..... the front door was wide open. In most U.S. jurisdictions leaving the front door open makes the OWNER guilty of the crime, so the network IT guy should be the one charged. The person who entered through the front door gets a lesser sentence of "trespassing" which is just a few months jailtime.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
However in order to be extradited the US Gov had to show damages above a certain level.
WHich they *blatantly* fabricated. $700k to audit windows computers to fix a *default password*? That cost was already sunk - they would have had to change them anyway, or they shoudl have done!
ANd uner the one sided, inane extradition treaty you cannot fight this until after you have left your home country behind...
You're whole point is aimed at the wrong target: nobody says that he shouldn't be tried and convicted if found guilty - even he himself admits he's done it.
The point that most people are making is that he should be tried (and convicted if found guilty) in the UK, not the US. There's plenty of reasons for that, the main one being that the penalties imposed by the US justice system for the kind of crime he commited are considered excessive and inhuman in the civilized world.
1) 50 years in PMITA prison is *not* commensurate to the crime
2) The level of damages has been inflated to include *actions they should already have taken* in order to justify the extradition.
3) He has ASKED to be tried in the UK, where the actual act AND intent were committed.
Obviously, yes.
Is it really that obvious? For example, should the Lockerbie bomber (Pan Am flight 103) be tried in Libya or in the UK?
Seeing as the crime was committed in the UK, he should be tried in the UK (and was). Gary's crime was also committed in the UK, so he should be tried here.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
What a nasty, narrow-minded little shit you are.
McKinnon isn't using aspergers as an excuse for why he did it, or why he should be excused. He admitted to committing the crime and even gave his reason why he did it. Your entire rant misses the point of this case which is one of a ridiculously unjust punishment on a person who is mentally unstable. Unjust punishments are hard enough for even the sanest of individuals to deal with, but forcing someone with aspergers away from their home and family, potentially to spend the rest of their life in a foreign prison is vile.
The so called "damage" he caused is a ridiculous estimation that would stretch the boundaries of farce were this a comedy - but unfortunately it's real; motivated by US administration butthurt over having it publicly revealed that their security is so simple as not to change default Windows passwords. Properly securing their network should have been something they paid for themselves, not something paid for in damages in the eventuality that someone will expose that weakness. No point buying a lock for this door, I'll just sue the next person who walks in without my permission and get them to pay for it.
This is not about excuses, or him denying guilt, it's about cruel and unfair punishment, and how it's the job of a Government - like that in the UK, in which a liberal is the Deputy PM - to protect their citizens from.
Countries can't own anything. The Queen does all that, don'tchaknow?
Your obedient subject,
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Speaking from experience, it's still a huge hassle. While I personally don't anyone who just ignores the law (although granted most of the people I know still work for U.S. companies) it makes your taxes so complicated that you pretty much can't file them without the help of a tax attorney.
Most importantly, you're still getting screwed because the country in which you reside (and work, presumably) still expects you to pay taxes, so in the end you're paying:
(local taxes) + (U.S. taxes) - (some exceptions meant to avoid double-taxation) = (still more than you would pay in either country if you were taxed only by that country)
When the other country you're living in is a European country with a very high tax rate (e.g. France, Sweden, etc.), you end up paying a lot more in taxes than you are getting in return benefits.
This space up for sale.
I'm interested in anyone's explanation on why would someone have to face a legal process that's not of his country.
Because he committed the crime abroad. Where he was sitting when he commanded the crime to happen isn't relevant, so long as it has an extradition treaty. If you sat in London and hired an assassin over the phone to kill someone in New York, you'd be accessory to murder in New York, not in London.
Gary's a fully-functioning adult with a girlfriend and common sense. His only mental questionability is that he was overconfident; result: he got caught. He's guilty as sin. Extradite the daft bugger and be done with it. It's not like he's facing the death penalty.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
I'm not sure you have followed the facts of the case. He admitted his crime, was charged in the UK with those crimes and had bail terms set with curfew and zero access to computers or the internet. I'm sure he would have eventually gone to court and served whatever punishment was set by UK courts. Unfortunately whilst on bail the US Government decided to use a fast track extradition treaty deisgned to be used for terrorists to get him in court in the US. In order to scare him into not contesting the extradition hey had threatened to throw the book at him and jail him for 50 years. He is not using Asperger's as an excuse to proclaim his innocence of these crimes since he freely admits what he did. The real debate is how serious is the offence he comitted, where to punish him and what level of punishment his offence deserves? The actions of the US government don't seem proportional to his actions.
[...] perhaps I am just fucking tired of parking my bike outside a busy supermarket and when I come back I find that someone had tried to steal it before noticing it is locked [...] Frankly this guy gets on my nerves. He has two choices, go to jail and I hope he has the shit raped out of him or be treated as the mentally retarded person unable to be responsible for his actions
Boo-fucking-hoo you sadistic fuck, quit your whining! The man is only asking to be tried and sentenced in the same country the crime was committed in. Why should the UK even extradite their citizens to a foreign country for a crime committed in UK? The definition of extradition says (emphasizes mine): returning a person who has committed a crime to the state or country where the crime was committed to stand trial and the crime wasn't committed in the USA, was it?
Not to mention the fact that if he'd be extradited he'll probably end up in a hard-core federal pounding-in-the-ass prison for a whole lifetime where he's likely to commit suicide. All that for what? A fucking UFO nut-job whose only crime was unauthorized computer access, where he did no damage other than exposing some fatal security flaws?
Does it really matter? He knowingly hacked the US Pentagon which is a breach of US national security. Anyone knows getting caught doing something like this carries consequences. Do I believe the consequences should be adjusted to fit the crime? Yes. Do I believe it's unreasonable for him to face consequences in the US for a crime committed against the US? No.
Out of genuine interest: do you believe he's likely to face 'reasonable' consequences for his actions if tried in the US?
This is a man with a slight mental illness who used default passwords on public-facing servers to look for evidence of UFOs. Stupid as hell, sure, and probably deserving of some level of punishment (although I'd be inclined to suggest psychiatric treatment), but not remotely worthy of several decades in an American federal prison, IMO.
Do you think he would realistically get less than ten years if tried in the US on national security related charges? Do you think that would be an acceptable punishment if he were sentenced as such?
Yes, and in the UK he'd get sentenced for breaking into a computer. The US want to punish him for the crime of showing what a bunch of incompetent fucks the clowns in pentagon are.
According to the prosecutor, they intend to "fry him". That alone is proof that a) he won't have a fair trial and b) they intend to issue a disproportionate sentence. The former at least is grounds for the Home Secretary - or rather a competent one - to veto the extradition.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The physical location of the perpetrator at the time he or she commited the criminal act defines the crime scene, at least in any sane jurisdiction. Otherwise, you'd have extradition requests from Thailand and a host of other places with lese majeste laws for things people in other countries wrote on their web pages.
A countries penal laws can have provisions for applying in other cases, but those are exceptions to the rule. If a country has arrested someone who committed a crime while he was physically present in said country, then it's that countries f***ing job to put that someone on trial.
BZZZTTT, WRONG! Australians also have to pay income tax to the Aaustralian tax office even though the don't live there or use any of the services that income tax provides.
No we don't. Foreign income affects your tax _brackets_, but you still only have to pay tax on the income earned in Australia.
actually the number was much simpler.
I think the relevant threshold was $5k, so they just said.
Yup- $5k damage done in each case.
multiply by n computers.
to get 700k damage.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
"PMITA" stands for "pound me in the ass" -- a tasteless gallows-humor joke about the prevalence of rape in the US prison systems. (I first heard the phrase in the movie Office Space.) Many of us Americans fear that, were we to go to prison, we'd be raped. I have no idea how rational this fear is, but it's very prevalent. Pretty much anyone in the US that you talk to about prisons will have the idea that if you go to prison, someone will be getting raped.
It's despicable, reprehensive, and barbaric. I wish it were not something we felt we had to joke about (ha ha only serious). Perhaps people would be more willing to go to prison for a few months or a year (rather than stacking appeals until they're out of money) if they knew they'd be safe from being raped.
>Not that surprising really as for decades the USA refused to extradite convicted terrorists that had fled to the USA from both the UK and France.
Also funny how those US citizens who openly funded the IRA were not held accountable as well.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Quite naturally. The UK does have laws against such things.
You send the criminals to the other country to be tried and sentenced in order to send a message to the other government that, "Even though this person committed a crime against you, it was not supported by our government and we bear you no ill will."
And prosecuting and putting said person in prison will not do that? I'm not following here. Usually, prosecuting someone and locking them away is a standard way of a government saying "We don't approve of what you did.".
There is some sort of group-think amongst slashdot readers that computer crimes are not crimes at all and should readily be forgiven.
No, but they guy's been in jail for a couple of years now without trial, for something that he could easily be prosecuted for in the UK.
I am saying that he is hardly innocent, and that, at the very least, the UK should give him a token jail sentence as a gesture of good will towards the U.S.
He's been locked up for a couple of frickin' years now. If they put him on trial today and give hime a "token" jail sentence, he'll be out tomorrow for time already served.