Slashdot Mirror
Obama Won't Intervene Over British Hacker McKinnon
CWmike writes "President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that he can't intervene in the long-running case of a British hacker charged with breaking into US military computers. Gary McKinnon's case came up during discussions with British Prime Minister David Cameron in Washington. The UK Home Office is reviewing whether McKinnon's medical condition is grounds to block his extradition to the US, which was approved in 2006. McKinnon has yet to stand trial in the US, where he was indicted by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2002 for hacking into 97 military and NASA computers between February 2001 and March 2002. Obama said during a press conference with Cameron that by tradition US presidents do not get involved in extraditions or prosecutions. 'I trust that this will get resolved in a way that underscores the seriousness of the issue, but also underscores the fact that we work together and we can find an appropriate solution,' Obama said."
Citing Asperger's as a medical condition to prevent extradition is silly. Being socially deficient doesn't make you incapable of determining right and wrong, if in fact he really has the condition at all considering the ridiculous amount of self-diagnosis out there. Genuine Asperger's is a form of autism and deeply impacts your life. The guy left a threat on one of the computers promising future hacks--he knew what he was doing.
This is starting to sound like another "Free Mitnick" movement, where people support a guy who legitimately deserves legal punishment just to make themselves feel compassionate.
Because people pursue things which hold interest to them.
Scenario 1: Obama shows leniency; McKinnon admits guilt and Obama pardons him. That shows weakness and would be ample fodder for his detractors.
Secnario 2: Obama gets up in arms about it and pursues extradition. It makes him look anti-British.
It's on the UK to fight extradition using whatever weapons are at their disposal, be it political capital or UK procedures of extradition. McKinnon's case couldn't really be more inconsequential to high-up US authorities.
Yes, assuming the government is lying, you are totally correct. If you believe McKinnon, he deleted no files, he did nothing harmful at all, and only accessed computers with no passwords protecting them. The government maintains that he download classified documents, that the machines were protected, and that he also download the computers' password files to facilitate further break-ins. He himself admits to leaving a note saying that he will continue to disrupt their networks at the highest level if they do not admit 9/11 was an inside job. He also claims that the reason the government is making up all of these "facts" to prosecute him with is that they are afraid it will get out that the army and airforce have advanced free-energy reactors and anti-gravity fields that they reverse engineered from crashed UFOs. So, to silence him they want to have him shipped to Guantanimo Bay and executed. He says he found clear evidence of UFO encounters (256 MB photos from the ISS clearly showing UFOs), and NASA documents detailing the reverse engineering of free energy reactors, but he was so excited and stoned that he forgot to save them to his computer.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
. I do hope that you realise that you are libelling a number of Scottish doctors, as you have no evidence for that statement - many cancers do have unexpected periods of remission. Meghrabi was convicted under Scottish law - not by an International Court - and was also released under Scottish law - which, by the way, Cameron cannot legally interfere with, as it is separate from the English legal system.
You may not like Scottish law. I personally consider aspects of US Law, like your constant reference to an 18th century document to deal with 21st century issues, to be laughable. But if someone is tried, convicted and dealt with under sovereign Scottish law, US politicians have no business whatever interfering. The McKinnon case, similarly, is one of someone who should have been dealt with under English law - but the US interfered.
However, my basic point is that pissing off a new Prime Minister is likely to be counterproductive in the long term. Your failure to understand this seems to be shared by a large number of your countrymen.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
That's a very slippery slope you are on. If there is a legal differential, there is a societal differential. If the difference did not exist, the laws would be in harmony. Which would imply that extradition would not be needed.
Extreme examples abound -- countries that refuse to extradite criminals that would be executed, because execution is deemed morally wrong in one jurisdiction, and morally right in another.
Now, in this case, breaking into a computer is considered wrong in both jurisdictions. Why extradite? The only reason to is to apply a different punishment. It will either be more, or less, severe. But, understand, it will be different and not in accord with the original countries societal norms.
Since the defendant is a member of the original country, and, by extension a member of its society, he should be tried in accordance with its societal norms.
It interests me that this is exactly what he requested.
It is morally wrong for the leaders of his society to permit this extradition. In doing so, they show themselves to be either weak or dismissive of the democracy that elected them. The last time I checked, the UK was a democracy, and under its own rule.
The defendant did not commit the crimes in the US, and didn't physically flee US jurisdiction. If this had occurred, I would be supportive of his extradition.
Only the most extreme sentences can overturn the right to be held accountable to ones society. These are generally (in my society) those which will also refugee status to be granted. Simple theft, breaking and entering, or computer crime come nowhere near this bar.
Allowing this extradition means that the UK government is abdicating its sovereignty. The people of the UK should push to bring down this government, as it is no longer following the rule of UK law and society.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
You know, the whole "victims are to blame if they didn't make the crime impossible" meme is starting to rub me the wrong way.
No doubt, some people should have secured their computers better. But, no, that doesn't automatically give anyone right to do something just because they can.
There are millions of homes out there that just about anyone who isn't a quadriplegic _can_ break in. If nothing else, an axe takes care of most doors and a simple brick can defeat most windows. Talk about gaping security holes when securing one's home, eh? We should start excusing the criminals because the homeowners didn't make their house as secure as a bunker, eh? Well, no, it doesn't work that way.
There are millions of bycicles out there that one can steal quite easily for a quick joyride. Most of the older locks can be "bumped" by a 10 year old. But no, we don't excuse someone just because the bike wasn't impossible to steal.
Etc.
In no other domain do we think, "well, the victim failed to make the crime impossible, so the criminal has a good excuse there." Being able to do something isn't and never was an automatic right to do it.
So, really, exactly why should #3 even be a factor at all when it comes to computers? Just because to some nerds the harm _they_ can do should be legal, while harm done to them (e.g., bullying in school) should be a hanging offence? Do some people have delusions of being royalty, or what?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.