Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Won't Intervene Over British Hacker McKinnon

Posted by timothy on from the unclenched-fist-dressed-in-velvet dept.

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."

5 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Barack Obama Hates White People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Just like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and their Tea Party supporters say, Barack Obama hates white people.

    Barack Obama won't intervene because he is a racist, unlike Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Tea Party "Patriots"

    1. Re:Barack Obama Hates White People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Just like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and their Tea Party supporters say, Barack Obama hates white people.

      Barack Obama won't intervene because he is a racist, unlike Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Tea Party "Patriots"

      Must be why he's getting the FDA to take aspirin off the market... you know... because it's white and it works!

  2. Re:Asperger's by john82 · · Score: -1, Troll

    The argument is over how severely he should be punished, given that he 1) didn't cause any damage, 2) wasn't acting out of malice, and 3) was at least accomplish what he did in large part due to the incompetence of those who are, in theory, supposed to be competent in protecting themselves from such attacks.

    1) You know for a fact there was no loss of data or access; no investigation into the break-in; and no work to prevent this from occurring again.
    2) You don't consider threats to execute more hacks to be malice
    3) Crime is the fault of the victim
    Your logic is amazing.

    What people are worried about is that he is going to have the book thrown at him not because of the merits of what his actions deserve, but because he caused a national embarrassment and those who prosecuted him want to use him as an example, a deterrence to others.

    Spoken like a defense attorney who gets paid for being artful, not for seeking justice.

    Plus, there's a legitimate question of jurisdiction.

    If you attack US assets located on US territory and violate US laws, you have to answer to US authorities violated. There is no question of jurisdiction. The British courts would tell you the same if the situation was reversed.

  3. Obama is saving him sell for the blago mess by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: -1, Troll

    Obama is saving him sell for the blago mess. He may be able to get away getting him off but not much more.

  4. he spied on the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    the US should have first dibs on trying and executing him.