LOL at that.
I think the important points are these :
1. He didn't hack into databases, he hacked into networks.
2. He said he caused no damage, the US say that each PC he was on cost exactly $5000 dollars to repair ! Apparently this amount is the minimum needed in order for it to be an extraditable offence. Coincidence ?
3. The Crown Prosecution Service disclosed the reports from the US about the damage, there was NO evidence of it. The judge said this was very embarrasing for the CPS and the so-called evidence amounted to hearsay.
4. The extradition treaty he is fighting requires no evidence to be supplied by the US, yet, were it the other way around, the UK government WOULD have to supply evidence to prosecute a US citizen as they are protected by their constitution.
Here is a link to a very interesting document written by the lead investigator of the DoD computer crime people over in America, this is the unit that was tracking mckinnon, just search the document for 'mckinnon' and you will find specific mentions of him, the rest is about security in general :
http://www.dodccrp.org/events/8th_ICCRTS/pdf/012.pdf
In this paper he says "the McKinnon case is hardly unique" and "was not decisive to US security". This is the lead US investigator !
If it's hardly unique than why is he being treated so uniquely badly.
He has said all along he will submit to trial in the UK and do whatever jail time the law requires. Since there is no evidence of damage then he can only be done under unauthorised access which currently has a maximum penalty of one year in prison.
I say put him on trial, let him serve his sentence and that should be that, he has had the weight of this one-sided treaty on his shoulders for nine years, that is a sentence in itself, for him AND his family.
