Gary McKinnon's mother attacks US extradition bid

Gary McKinnon's mother attacks US extradition bid

By Shaun Curry | AFP – 6 hours ago

The mother of a Briton who hacked into US military and NASA computers on Tuesday attacked "ludicrous" attempts to have him prosecuted in the United States as MPs urged reform of extradition laws.

Janis Sharp said her son Gary McKinnon's life had been destroyed since his arrest on suspicion of gaining access to computers in 2001 and 2002 in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

US officials are demanding the 45-year-old, who suffers from Asperger's Syndrome, stand trial in the United States despite warnings that he could commit suicide if extradited.

McKinnon, from north London, admits the crime but claims he was only looking for evidence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs).

"It has destroyed his life and it has destroyed ours," his mother told BBC television.

"Here the Crown Prosecution Service said in 2002 that Gary was looking at six months' community service but then when the Americans took over suddenly it becomes 60 years."

She added: "Our argument is to try Gary here and to be given a proportional sentence. To go from six months to 60 years is ludicrous."

McKinnon has been facing the threat of extradition for the past seven years.

His mother made the plea a day after MPs in the House of Commons called on ministers to ensure better safeguards for Britons wanted overseas, including through an overhaul of the British-US extradition treaty.

They agreed to the parliamentary motion without a vote after a string of high-profile MPs supported it.

"Gary McKinnon should not be treated like some gangland mobster or Al-Qaeda mastermind," said Conservative MP Dominic Raab.

The motion is not binding on the government but immigration minister Damian Green said it would be taken into account in a current independent review of British extradition arrangements.

McKinnon's family and lawyers have warned throughout the long-running case that he could commit suicide or suffer psychosis if the extradition went ahead.

But the US has continued to demand his extradition, alleging his attacks on the US Navy and NASA space agency computers led to repairs costing $800,000 (600,000 euros).
................................................

I think that if a person in the UK can hack into NASA computers then NASA and their security is a bunch of dumb shits. Their security must be second rate for it to happen and if it cost $800,000 to put right then there are a lot of thieving people fixing computers in the States. I expect $500,000 was spent on cleaning the porn off the hard drives, before they could find the problem.
This must be the special relationship that the Americans are always talking about. We will extradite UK citizens to the states but the UK can fuck off. We don’t have Blair and Brown being shagged by Bush any more there is a new regime. I think people around the world ought to see what the UK people think of the one sided special relationship.

Be well IAN 2411

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/gary-mckinn...125412008.html


Read the posts, the voice of the people.


Be well IAN 2411

Maybe they want him so bad because he did indeed find UFO evidence heh?

I'm sure there are two sides or more to this story; but still...smh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Maybe they want him so bad because he did indeed find UFO evidence heh?

I'm sure there are two sides or more to this story; but still...smh.

---

I know what your saying denu...but FFS...60 years????

That's crazy. I'm agreeing with Ian, based on what I'm reading here. I hadn't heard the story before. I've been in a news vacuum, except of course for the changes to saying Mass (not that I've ever been). My own fault, there is plenty of news out there, I'm just avoiding it.

Ummm....GMcK....I can't see him getting sixty years. That's just pressure on him to make a deal. I think that the Powers-that-Be just want to know in depth how he did it and if he had outside help.

Hell, they'll probably end up paying like lots of money to him to show him where everything went wrong. Hey....do ya really think he found pictures and stuff of UFO's or just lots of porn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by didoanna

Hey....do ya really think he found pictures and stuff of UFO's or just lots of porn?

---

I heard that it was a lot of interracial porn shit with Martians and Cyber Men involved, very messy...lol

Be well IAN 2411

Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

I think that if a person in the UK can hack into NASA computers then NASA and their security is a bunch of dumb shits. Their security must be second rate for it to happen and if it cost $800,000 to put right then there are a lot of thieving people fixing computers in the States. I expect $500,000 was spent on cleaning the porn off the hard drives, before they could find the problem.
This must be the special relationship that the Americans are always talking about. We will extradite UK citizens to the states but the UK can fuck off. We don’t have Blair and Brown being shagged by Bush any more there is a new regime. I think people around the world ought to see what the UK people think of the one sided special relationship.

Be well IAN 2411

---

It is very hard (hence expensive) to clean a compromised machine fully: the recommended way is to wipe every machine potentially affected and reinstall from original untainted media and very carefully checked backups. Well over a decade ago I fixed one downed server (not a security problem in that case, filesystem corruption, but a similar cure) which was billed internally at around $500 - many machines across multiple sites and organisations, throw in additional security needs and law enforcement capturing all the details in hopes of prosecuting the culprit, I'm sure it's easy to rack up that sort of bill.

As for one-sided ... for the US to arrest and send someone to a UK court, there must be "probable cause", which is the same standard required for them to bring someone before their own courts; for the UK to arrest and send someone to a US court, there must be "reasonable suspicion", which is the standard required for our own police. In addition, the US courts will only accept the charges in the first place if they find probable cause exists - otherwise, it never reaches the extradition stage anyway. Of course, whichever standard you choose to apply, how can McKinnon's own confession not meet it when combined with the relevant logs identifying him as the culprit?!

The idea that the process is "too short" or "not enough court hearings" ... in the context of a case which has been dragged out, by McKinnon's own choice, for the better part of a decade now, via seven different courts, yet despite having admitted his guilt years ago, he remains at liberty in the UK now? Letting him drag the process out to this extent is a travesty.

The sixty years? The equivalent crime against UK government computers actually carries a maximum sentence under UK law of life imprisonment. McKinnon was, however, offered a plea bargain which would have meant a sentence of 37-46 months, the majority of that served in UK rather than US prisons, with early release somewhere between half and two thirds of the way through that, i.e. less than three years. He turned that offer down, presumably on the basis he thought he could filibuster his way out of punishment for his crimes. Sadly, so far it looks as if he has been right in that.

See I knew there were two stories.........

PS: Hey don't forget all the bdsm porn he found too!

I am not talking about the crime, i am talking about the extradition, we in the UK should not even be thinking about sending him to America. It is written in the American constatution that no citizen of the USA will be extrodited to a foreign country to be tried. So WTF did Blair sign that agreement with Bush for? Unless it was pay back for having his ass stretched that night in the White House. When the British wanted IRA terrorists to be extradited from the States, the USA told the UK emphatically no. Instead they allowed them to walk around freely and beg for millions of $, so that they could go back to the province and kill some more British soldiers with American made Ammalite rifles. The USA would not send a few pilots over to the UK for an inquest into blue on blue killing, and there was no chance of going to prison. I will not make light of 9/11, it was an atrosity on the free world. However since then, the Americans have still not learned that respect has to flow both ways to be of any use. The UK is not now, and never will be, the lap dogs of the USA, and if the Americans believe they are, then they dont deserve the respect that is given them.

The words-QUID PRO QUO-come to mind, but it seems those words only mean something when it is the Americans using it.

Gary McKinnon belongs to the UK...America, leave him alone, its bully boy tactics, its a powerful country against one autistic person. My how the standards drop when there are no wars that need back up.

Be well IAN 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

It is written in the American constatution that no citizen of the USA will be extrodited to a foreign country to be tried.

---

Complete nonsense, the US constitution says nothing of the sort, which is why the US can and does extradite suspects to the UK as well (indeed, last time I checked, not a single UK request had been refused by the US). The Russian constitution does apparently say that, and the French also refuse to hand their citizens over for trial (I wonder if the European Arrest Warrant trumps that?) - and personally, I find that disgusting: to allow a suspect to escape justice based on the passport they hold is terrible. I for one do not want my country sheltering criminals, native or otherwise!

Quote:

---

I will not make light of 9/11, it was an atrosity on the free world. However since then, the Americans have still not learned that respect has to flow both ways to be of any use. The UK is not now, and never will be, the lap dogs of the USA, and if the Americans believe they are, then they dont deserve the respect that is given them.

---

Does knowing that the US does actually extradite when the UK requests it and that you had them confused with the Russians and French change that position at all? As for making light of 9/11, if only McKinnon had shown that civility when he was posting offensive graffiti on the computer systems he attacked.

Quote:

---

Gary McKinnon belongs to the UK...America, leave him alone, its bully boy tactics, its a powerful country against one autistic person. My how the standards drop when there are no wars that need back up.

---

Maybe he does "belong" to us - but do and should we want him? If there were doubts about his guilt, or that he'd receive a fair trial and, if convicted, sentence, I'd be hesitant about extradition too - but that isn't the case here.

If McKinnon ever does finally serve time for his crimes and gets the stretching you refer to Blair getting, will the apologists who blamed his victims for not having "enough" security apply the same logic and blame him for not having a good enough chastity belt, or not being strong enough to fight off Bubba?

US-UK Extradition: The law explained

MPs have urged the government to reform the UK's extradition arrangements to better protect British citizens.

In a backbench debate in Parliament, a Commons motion calling for change was passed without the need for a vote.

Extradition between the United States and the UK is set out in a 2003 Treaty, which later became part of domestic law in both countries.

Extradition from the US to the UK

When the UK sends an extradition request to the US, it is received by the US State Department via the British Embassy in Washington.

A State Department lawyer looks at the request and assesses whether it conforms to the 2003 Treaty that underpins extradition between the two states.

A critical test, set out in the treaty is that the British request must include "such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offence for which extradition is requested."

This requirement does not apply to requests submitted by the US to the UK.

The Department of Justice also examines whether there is "probable cause" to justify the request.

This test comes from the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution which states that people cannot be arrested unless the authorities have "probable cause" for their action.

So, once a suspect has been arrested, they can challenge the lawfulness of the request.

If the request is ruled lawful, the Secretary of State takes the final decision after considering human rights issues - such as whether the suspect could be denied a fair trial or face inhumane treatment.

The Home Office's massive review of extradition says that the US has not refused any extradition requests since the treaty came into force.


Extradition from the UK to US

The process begins when a US prosecutor obtains an arrest warrant with the approval of the domestic courts.

In England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service acts on behalf of the US in taking the case through the courts.

Once the police have arrested the suspect, the courts must decide whether or not the US has met the tests required for an extradition to take place. This is a fairly technical hearing in which the lawfulness of the request is examined.

The US does not need to provide all the evidence in a case, as if the allegations were being tested in a full trial by British judges.

What this comes down to is proving to the courts that there is reasonable suspicion - essentially the hurdle police need to jump to justify an arrest - but obviously short of what is necessary to get a conviction.

Are the tests the same?

The 2003 Act effectively made it easier for the US to seek the extradition of someone from the UK because the US would no longer need to provide a "prima facie" case to British courts - proving your case on the face of available evidence.

Campaigners say this is unjust because someone can be extradited without the case being properly tested. But supporters of the treaty and the related British 2003 Act argue that the removal of the prima facie test simply means that suspects face the same broad test in each country.

The Home Office's extradition review argued that there was no real difference between the US tests of "probable cause" and the introduction of "reasonable suspicion".

The panel said that both tests amounted to the basic standard of proof used by police officers in both countries to make an arrest.

But critics say that's a red herring. Campaign group Friends Extradited says the real issue of imbalance is that while the US courts don't allow an extradition until a judge has examined the quality of the evidence, because of the constitutional rights of the suspect, a British judge is merely examining the quality of the application - not the case the individual faces on arrival in the US.

Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its June 2011 report on extradition that the burden of proof for extradition should be increased - but the US argues that that it cannot ask the UK to hand over a suspect unless its request has already met the same test in its own courts.

Extradition rules: MPs urge reform of US-UK accord


MPs have urged the government to reform the UK's extradition arrangements to better protect British citizens.

During a Commons debate, Conservative MP Dominic Raab highlighted the case of alleged hacker Gary McKinnon, who suffers from Asperger's Syndrome and is fighting extradition to the US.

A Commons motion calling for change was passed without the need for a vote.

But immigration minister Damian Green told MPs the government was already considering what action was needed.

Ministers were deciding what to do "to ensure that this country's extradition arrangements work both efficiently and fairly," he said.

An independent review of the UK-US extradition treaty earlier this year by former Court of Appeal judge Sir Scott Baker found no reason to believe it was operating unfairly - a decision currently being studied by Home Secretary Theresa May.

The US ambassador to the UK also told MPs last week the existing arrangements were working well.

'Rough justice'

But MPs have continued to press for action and the backbench debate, secured by Mr Raab, had the backing of more than 40 MPs, including senior Labour and Lib Dem figures.

The motion called for the treaty, agreed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, to be redrafted to enable the government to refuse extradition requests if UK prosecutors have decided against beginning proceedings at home.

However, it is not binding on the government.

US/UK extradition rules

• For the US to agree to extradite someone to the UK there must be evidence accepted by a US judge as showing "probable cause"
• For the UK to agree to extradite someone to the US there must be evidence accepted by a UK judge as showing "reasonable suspicion"
• Sir Scott Baker's review said: "In our opinion there is no significant difference between the probably cause test and the reasonable suspicion test"
•
• UK extradition: Key cases
•
Critics of the treaty say it is much easier to extradite people from the UK than the US because the US does not need to present evidence to a British court to request extradition.

Conversely, the UK must provide "sufficient evidence to establish probable cause" in order to secure the extradition of an American citizen.

The treaty was originally designed to help bring terrorist suspects to justice but campaigners say it is being used for other offences such as fraud and drug-trafficking.


The case of Mr McKinnon, who has Asperger's syndrome and faces 60 years in jail if found guilty of hacking into US government computer systems, is one of a number cited by MPs as cause for change.

'A sham'

Opening the debate on Monday, Mr Raab said: "At root it is about the injustice in despatching someone with Asperger's syndrome hundreds of miles from home on allegations of computer hacking when he was apparently searching for unidentified flying objects."

He said Mr McKinnon should not be treated like some "gangland mobster or al-Qaeda mastermind".


The motion was "not about abolishing extradition, which is vital to international efforts in relation to law enforcement; it's about whether, in taking the fight to the terrorists and the serious criminals after 9/11, the pendulum swung too far the other way," he insisted.

Decisions on where suspects should be tried in cross-border cases should be taken openly in court rather than behind closed doors, Mr Raab suggested.

And he added: "In the extradition treaties the US has with Brazil, Mexico, Australia, just to name a few, those countries retain the right to decline extradition in these and far wider circumstances as it affects their nationals. Is it so unreasonable for Britain, a stalwart ally, to ask for this modest adjustment?"

Critics also disapprove of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), which allows fast-track extraditions on the assumption that standards of justice are adequate across Europe.

Mr Raab said that assumption was a "sham."

Former shadow home secretary David Davis also told MPs he believed the "draconian" extradition systems with the US were unfair, with the Americans receiving more suspects from Britain than it extradites to the UK.

"Between 2003 and 2009 there were 63 extraditions to the USA. Of those, precisely one was a terrorist," Mr Davis said.

'Emotion vs reality'

Labour former home secretary David Blunkett told MPs he had private meetings with US Department of Justice officials to discuss the case and reported back to current Home Secretary Theresa May and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke on the Americans' views on whether Mr McKinnon could serve any sentence in the UK.

He told MPs the meetings happened in 2009 - when he reported back to the Labour government - and 2010, but he had kept them confidential.

"These are difficult issues because we shouldn't make any presumption that somebody would be found guilty," he said.

The Green Party's Caroline Lucas raised the issue of Babar Ahmad, who has spent seven years in British high-security prisons without trial as he fights extradition to the US on terror allegations.

She said there was a need for a full public inquiry into what had gone on in the case and this was a "crucial opportunity" to send a "very clear message" that reform was needed.

Babar Ahmad's father, Ashfaq Ahmad, welcomed the outcome of the debate. He said: "We fully support Dr Lucas's call for a full public inquiry into the CPS actions in this case and call on the Attorney General to direct the DPP to review all the evidence against Babar with a view to prosecuting him in the UK."

Campaign group Fair Trials International said too many lives had been "torn apart" by Britain's fast-track extradition system.

"Following this vote, the government must now act to protect against abuse and put justice and fairness back into our laws," said chief executive Jago Russell.

A recent report by Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights suggested that between January 2004 and July 2011 there were 130 requests by the US for people to be extradited from the UK, compared with 54 requests from the UK to the US.

But Louis Susman, US ambassador to the UK, told the Commons foreign affairs committee last week the US had never denied a UK extradition request, and the same standards applied to both countries.

.......................................

The Americans are abusing the reason why the Extradition order was put into use.

Be well IAN 2411

MPs finally stand up for Gary and their country as extradition law reform motion is voted through
By James Slack MAIL ONLINE

MPs heard that since 2004, 29 UK nationals or dual nationals were extradited from Britain to the US. Only five Americans were extradited from the U.S. to Britain.

Despite the evidence the treaty is unfair, the U.S embassy has been fiercely resisting any changes.
Last week, the U.S Ambassador made two separate visits to lobby MPs, leading to allegations he was using strong-arm tactics.

The changes MPs want pursuing, are to give British citizens equal protections under the treaty and, crucially, to introduce a new 'forum' test.

This means a person would normally be tried in the country where their crime took place. In the case of Mr McKinnon, he hacked into Pentagon and NASA computers from the bedroom of his north London flat.

Mr Raab told MPs: 'The Gary McKinnon case is about the injustice in dispatching someone with Asperger's syndrome hundreds of miles from home on allegations of computer hacking when he was apparently searching for unidentified flying objects.

Be well IAN 2411

It's good to have confirmation Americans can be and have been extradited to the UK, rather than this being prohibited as you said earlier, though a link to articles would be rather less disruptive than pasting screenfuls of text mid-discussion....

"The Americans are abusing the reason why the Extradition order was put into use."

Nope. The extradition treaty was never about terrorism - we've had extradition arrangements in place with the US since the Extradition Act 1870, and the 2003 amendment was to fix the imbalance against the US. The notion that the Extradition Act 2003 was all about terrorism is little more than wishful thinking (if you give them the benefit of the doubt) on the McKinnon PR team's part; indeed, from a quick check of Hansard for that period, terrorism wasn't even mentioned in this context! Nor, for that matter, is it entirely about the US - it covers everything from the Isle of Man to New Zealand, through a variety of bilateral and multilateral treaties. How many of the dozens of extraditions, in both directions, have had the slightest connection to terrorism - and why do you think the update to a century-old arrangement was all about the very tiny minority of cases which might have one, rather than the vast majority of cases it actually covers, including McKinnon's?

There seem to be a lot of misconceptions floating around now: Ian's statement the US won't extradite US citizens was a new one on me, the notion extradition is somehow supposed to be about terrorism rather than the crimes it actually gets used for is much more widespread, as is the implication all he did was "look around" the Navy's computers rather than plastering them with abuse, deleting files - though he did admit to threatening to "continue to disrupt at the highest levels".

For me, extradition serves two purposes. One is in furtherance of the moral imperative to assist justice where possible - suspects should face trial wherever possible, rather than escaping thanks to a quirk of geography; the other is the opportunity to offload criminals to another government. I could never understand France's enthusiasm for sheltering a convicted paedophile rapist: wouldn't their country be a better place without people like that?

If the extradition act is so equal then why are both sides of the house in favour of a rethink? The only people that know anything as to why the treaty was looked at in 2003 was Bush...out of office....Blair....out of office.... and David Blunkett...and he can’t remember damn all....very convenient. It was signed by a blind man before the UK parliament was consulted, now if that was not underhanded then what is. The only way they could get it passed was by doing it in secret, and that is abuse of paliamentry privlages. It could be argued that it was the, Blind leading the even blinder.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm

Be well IAN 2411

The BBC link is a 404 for me. The statewatch one was amusing, in a way, to read someone complaining about how terrible it is not to respect double jeopardy protection ... protection the US has written into their constitution, but has just been torn up over here for the sake of political capital - meaning extradition to the US would give greater protection of that right than facing a UK court! Their complaint about implementation by statutory instrument is almost comically exaggerated too, considering how much UK legislation comes into force by that route - including, as I recall, the extradition arrangements to most other countries...

Yes, some of the politicians talk about a 'rethink' ... but they voted against actually even reviewing it back in 2009, and when the review was eventually carried out it found precisely the opposite of what you believe. Maybe one day they will even change something - but I can hardly imagine they would even attempt to sabotage extradition to the extent it no longer works in the case of a self-confessed criminal facing the prospect of a fair trial, right to appeal then, if convicted of the crimes he admitted to previously, a return to serve the rest of his sentence in the UK anyway.

The key question, though: if, as claimed, the process really is "too quick" and doesn't provide "enough" scrutiny ... why is McKinnon still in the UK now, a full decade after the crimes in question, having spent longer dragging this through every court in the land than the sentence he'd have faced in the first place if he hadn't opted for delaying tactics? If you seriously believe that travesty is "too quick", what would you prefer ... a full decade? Twenty years? Wait until everyone involved has retired and let historians rather than lawyers handle it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

The BBC link is a 404 for me.

---

You are obviously American so WTF is a 404???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

Yes, some of the politicians talk about a 'rethink' ... but they voted against actually even reviewing it back in 2009, and when the review was eventually carried out it found precisely the opposite of what you believe.

---

No if you read all that has been shown you, you would know that David Blunkett reviewed it all by himself as Home Secretary. He has stated that he can't remember what he talked about....so not only was he blind...he was stupid as well. The Labour Gov had a over whelming majority, there was no way that it could ever be debated fairly. Pushed through the H of C by Labour Gov stealth, complacency comes to mind. Labour Gov giving away the British freedom just like they gave everything else away to Europe. Well they have been kicked out on their ass for raping the UK of its wealth, so please don’t quote to me that the Gov did this or that in 2009-10. In 2009-10, Blair/Brown and all of the labour cronies were far too busy filling their own pockets to worry about the man that votes, thats why they are out. Blair/Brown/Blunkett should be on trial for giving away British Sovereignty and heritage. The word Traitors comes to mind.

I don’t think it was ever debated in the H of C, because the whole treaty was brought in the back door in the first place. I’ll bet your House of Reps had a day off laughing at the UKs gullibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

Last week, the U.S Ambassador made two separate visits to lobby MPs, leading to allegations he was using strong-arm tactics.

---

Why was he doing that???? was this one sided deal that good?

Be well Ian 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

You are obviously American so WTF is a 404???

---

Wrong - I'm British - a 404 is the HTTP (web) error code for 'page not found', which is the result clicking on your BBC link gave me. Nothing at all to do with nationality (although in fact Tim Berners-Lee was heavily involved in that protocol's creation - making it a British code if it has any nationality at all).

Quote:

---

No if you read all that has been shown you, you would know that David Blunkett reviewed it all by himself as Home Secretary.

---

If you'd been paying attention, you'd also be aware that is not the review I was referring to, and banging on about Blunkett's physical disability as if it's somehow relevant seems rather tasteless. I'm no fan of the Labour party - and indeed voted against them in every single General Election since becoming eligible to vote, though living in an SNP seat makes that rather academic anyway - but you can't pin all of this on them.

Quote:

---

I don’t think it was ever debated in the H of C, because the whole treaty was brought in the back door in the first place. I’ll bet your House of Reps had a day off laughing at the UKs gullibility.

---

It's not my House, as I point out above, and it's the US Senate which debates and approves treaties anyway. What "gullibility" do you see in requiring the same standard of proof to take a suspect from Britain to a US court as is required to take them to a UK one, anyway?

Quote:

---

Why was he doing that???? was this one sided deal that good?

---

Since it allows criminals to drag extradition processes out for the better part of a decade even after confessing, and the independent review confirmed it is not "one-sided". You've also dodged my question: if still not being extradited a decade after the crime, having been through virtually every court in the land, is "too quick" for you or not enough court time, what would you want to happen before handing criminals over for trial? Do you think we should copy the French and shelter even the worst convicted paedophile scum if they happen to have a local passport?

Of course the US Ambassador would like to see this nonsense end - it's hardly good for anyone to have ignorant people spreading untruths like the false claim that the US won't extradite Americans.

I believe this is a free world and freedom of opinion. You obviously have an axe to grind, so do it with someone else. You are clever and have won your argument, not mine only yours. I have been wrong on a few things and admit it but thats life. However I dont need you to reprimand me for stating a man is blind. The man is blind and he is also a frikking idiot for forgetting what the conversation was about. Forgetfulness is not an excuse if you are the Home Secretary with a secretary.


Be well IAN 2411

Besides a bunch of falsehoods, Ian, you haven't advanced any reasons at all for your assertion we "shouldn't even think" of sending this guilty man to face trial. Neither Blunkett's eyesight not his memory is remotely relevant to the independent review carried out by a judge (not Blunkett, and after the Labour government was disposed of) into the matter. Could you at least answer the question you keep ducking: what criteria would you demand before sending McKinnon to face trial for the crimes he admitted to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

I believe this is a free world and freedom of opinion. You obviously have an axe to grind, so do it with someone else. You are clever and have won your argument, not mine only yours. I have been wrong on a few things and admit it but thats life. However I dont need you to reprimand me for stating a man is blind. The man is blind and he is also a frikking idiot for forgetting what the conversation was about. Forgetfulness is not an excuse if you are the Home Secretary with a secretary.


Be well IAN 2411

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

Besides a bunch of falsehoods, Ian,

---

I have been very understanding to your argument, and I believe I have said I was wrong on a few points and given you the day. That in no way gives you the right to flame me by calling me a liar on this site. Argument Closed.
Be well IAN 2411

I did not say the falsehoods were of your own making, flame you or call you a liar - merely pointed out that your initial position was based on beliefs you have admitted were incorrect. It isn't about anyone being "given the day", I just hope you - and any other McKinnon supporter reading - might reconsider their position given the facts. If you aren't willing to reconsider your position even knowing its basis is false, so be it: arguing with you would indeed be a lost cause.

Ok I misunderstood your meaning, but i do believe that there should be a certain criterion that all countries should abide by when extraditing a person from his native country. One being standard of mentality or fitness. The attitude of we want him and will stop at nothing less is not good enough reason, unless it is for murder, terrorism, treason whatever.

Be well IAN 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

I am not talking about the crime, i am talking about the extradition, we in the UK should not even be thinking about sending him to America. It is written in the American constatution that no citizen of the USA will be extrodited to a foreign country to be tried.
Gary McKinnon belongs to the UK...America, leave him alone, its bully boy tactics, its a powerful country against one autistic person. My how the standards drop when there are no wars that need back up.

Be well IAN 2411

---

I agree with you on both accounts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

Ok I misunderstood your meaning, but i do believe that there should be a certain criterion that all countries should abide by when extraditing a person from his native country. One being standard of mentality or fitness. The attitude of we want him and will stop at nothing less is not good enough reason, unless it is for murder, terrorism, treason whatever.

---

Thank you - I agree there, and indeed both countries have provisions for preventing even a domestic trial from going ahead: 'insane in bar of trial' or 'unfit to plead'. Up here, the definition is 'a mental alienation of some kind which prevents the accused giving the instruction which a sane man would give for his defence or from following the evidence as a sane man would follow it and instructing his counsel as the case goes, along any point that arises', which seems like rather a verbose way of describing the test the US uses of whether the accused has the "ability to consult rationally with an attorney to aid in his own defense and to have a rational and factual understanding of the charges".

Most relevant to this particular case, UK extradition law sets a test, that if "the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him" then the extradition process must be either suspended until the condition no longer applies, or terminated entirely. It is not that the extradition process disregards his medical condition at all, simply that a series of court hearings on that specific issue considered it at length and ruled that his Asperger's does not meet the criteria set down by UK law. If you or I were facing extradition to the US, or indeed Australia, France or even Ireland, and were either physically or mentally ill, that would be considered by the judge, who would not approve extradition unless and until the court was satisfied we were medically fit for extradition - as the High Court ruled that McKinnon is, after considering evidence from the specialists who diagnosed him.

David Allen Green, a lawyer, studied the case closely and wrote a series of very detailed blog posts about the case (last update here - http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/...-mckinnon.html - with links back to the previous parts). Most interesting, and depressing, is the huge gap he observes between the documented reality and evidence produced - by both sides - and the media coverage and public campaign.

(Sorry, I wrote this post several days ago, and only just found the unposted draft sitting here.)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/bail-hearin...072010389.html

Well the British courts cannot help themselves, can they? It seems that they are just as stupid as the bent and corrupt UK police force. Our courts bend over backward for the American justice system to fuck them every time they call saying “We want”.

I would like to point out that this case was never heard by any person in the British courts to see if it merited extradition. That is I might add against his rights as a British citizen and against any free world constitutions. It is not for me to predict his guilt or innocence but he should have had his chance to state his case in defence.

The only thing that I see this guy did wrong, and it was his biggest mistake. He should have changed his religion to Muslim, stood outside a Mosque in London preaching hate and death to all Christian infidels. Then burn the Stars and Stripes along with the Union Flag, and sit an effigy of Obama and Cameron on top.

There is no way in hell after that, that Europe would have sanctioned his extradition. The social Services in the UK would have given him a new house in Nights Bridge London, rent free with 24 hour police protection and a nice wad of money to spend on shopping each week. It would be done because they would not want to be seen as religious bigots.

I am getting sick to death with America, thinking that they rule the world, and they can send their frigging marshals anywhere in the world to incarcerate who they damn well like.

It is about time the UK Government stood up for the people and stick their fingers up at this one sided treaty. It seems that every person in the UK knows the treaty is flawed except the assholes in Westminster that should know.

Yes this is a rant, but it is also making a point that the UK Governments in the last 20 years have pandered to the Americans. We now have Prime Ministers that when the Americans say jump, these assholes ask, “How High.”


Be well IAN 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

I would like to point out that this case was never heard by any person in the British courts to see if it merited extradition.

---

So what was the venue for his two year fight? Our courts certainly can and do get involved in hearing extradition disputes. The US does still have to demonstrate reasonable suspicion, the UK has to demonstrate probable cause in the opposite direction. In the unlikely event he visits here, Mr Justice Cranston may be upset to learn that either he isn't a person or that you've redefined our High Court as no longer being British... His ruling actually goes into extensive detail considering various aspects of the evidence and indeed Tappin's defence to the charges. It's also relevant to note that Tappin doesn't actually dispute the evidence or his guilt, relying instead on claiming that it was entrapment on the government's part since his partner in the operation had in fact already been arrested and was cooperating with law enforcement at the time.

Quote:

---

It is about time the UK Government stood up for the people and stick their fingers up at this one sided treaty. It seems that every person in the UK knows the treaty is flawed except the assholes in Westminster that should know.

Yes this is a rant, but it is also making a point that the UK Governments in the last 20 years have pandered to the Americans. We now have Prime Ministers that when the Americans say jump, these assholes ask, “How High.”

---

Actually, the UK has refused seven US extradition requests - the US has refused zero UK ones, handing over every single suspect we've asked for. Look at McKinnon again, still in the UK a decade after the crimes he admitted to committing, having dragged it through every single court on the map. If that's "pandering" in your book, what the heck does obstruction look like?