Poll: Should Gary McKinnon be extradited to the US for hacking?

[Von Smallhausen]

No-one says he shouldn't be punished, but he was on UK soil when he committed the crime and should be tried here under our laws.

Couldn't agree more.

Extraditing him to the US under seemingly one sided extradition laws seems a tad excessive to me.

Why not try him in a British court ? He lives in Britain, committed the alleged offence in Britain so he should be tried in Britain and not extradited under a n extradition treaty that is far mor stacked to the US than to the UK.

 

[ubersonic]

Couldn't agree more.

Extraditing him to the US under seemingly one sided extradition laws seems a tad excessive to me.

Why not try him in a British court ? He lives in Britain, committed the alleged offence in Britain so he should be tried in Britain and not extradited under a n extradition treaty that is far mor stacked to the US than to the UK.

He was in Britain but he committed the crime in America by remote. If he had been here and used a mobile phone to trigger a bomb in a French shopping centre they would be demanding he was extradited too.

 

[meghatronic]

He was in Britain but he committed the crime in America by remote. If he had been here and used a mobile phone to trigger a bomb in a French shopping centre they would be demanding he was extradited too.

Poor analogy.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

He was in Britain but he committed the crime in America by remote. If he had been here and used a mobile phone to trigger a bomb in a French shopping centre they would be demanding he was extradited too.

But he didn't detonate a bomb or do anything remotely similar.

If I decided to defraud someone in the US via e-bay then the jurisdiction to investigate would be for the UK authorities as although the victim is in the USA, the crime was committed in the UK.

Same thing applies to Gary McKinnon or at least I would hope that it does.

 

[Deluxe1]

But he never defrauded anyone in the US via ebay either.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

So we'll keep going around in circles then.

Victim is the US government. Alleged offence was committed in Britain.

British judicial system should investigate and, if the evidence is there, try him.

 

[Tute]

Well when the crime was committed the extradition treaty was in place, hence he should suffer the consequences that everyone else should?

I can't believe this is still going, how utterly soft and laughable are our government? It must be a good 7 or 8 years since the offence?

Cue Rroff to tell me how unfair I am, but i'm afraid my stance hasn't changed on it.

 

[Deluxe1]

If he had of co-operated with the US he would have only served a reported 3 - 4 years which it would have all been done and dusted now.

He's nobody to blame but himself for the **** he's got himself into.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Do you think the extradition treaty if fair Tute considering the US is not required to provide prima fascie evidence ?

I personally think that makes a mockery of any fair justice system.

 

[Tute]

What does the extradition treaty itself say? Do they have to provide evidence for extradition?

 

[ubersonic]

But he didn't detonate a bomb or do anything remotely similar.

If I decided to defraud someone in the US via e-bay then the jurisdiction to investigate would be for the UK authorities as although the victim is in the USA, the crime was committed in the UK.

Same thing applies to Gary McKinnon or at least I would hope that it does.

That's not how the law works though, back in the 1980's more than half the world viruses originated in Bulgaria (im getting to the point I promise ) because hacking was legal there and they knew the would be no repercussions. Under modern international law hacking falls under the jurisdiction of the country where the offence takes place not the country where the offender commits it from.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

The current treaty with the USA says that they do not have to provide prima fascie evidence which basically means that they do not have to provide evidence to the UK authorities which would suggest on initial examination that the case is relatively self-evident based on the facts they have.

It is currently a matter of saying that he did this, we don't have to provide PF evidence as to why and hand him over.

It simply isn't fair.

 

[rypt]

He was in Britain but he committed the crime in America by remote. If he had been here and used a mobile phone to trigger a bomb in a French shopping centre they would be demanding he was extradited too.

If Zimbabwe makes it illegal to access the website www.clickme.zw ... and you access it, should you then be extradited to Zimbabwe?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

That's not how the law works though, back in the 1980's more than half the world viruses originated in Bulgaria (im getting to the point I promise ) because hacking was legal there and they knew the would be no repercussions. Under modern international law hacking falls under the jurisdiction of the country where the offence takes place not the country where the offender commits it from.

I will have to do some more digging as that isn't how I understand it to be.

The Computer Misuse Act of 1990 more than covers what Gary McKinnon is alleged to have committed.

 

[Tute]

The current treaty with the USA says that they do not have to provide prima fascie evidence which basically means that they do not have to provide evidence to the UK authorities which would suggest on initial examination that the case is relatively self-evident based on the facts they have.

It is currently a matter of saying that he did this, we don't have to provide PF evidence as to why and hand him over.

It simply isn't fair.

Well then he should go. Rules are rules, and we should all have to follow them. There are a lot of things I think are utterly utterly unfair but if I got caught doing them, i'd do the time.

If the extradition treaty was different then fair play. But it wasn't. Although no doubt it'll get stalled until something is found to get him let off.

I think this case is all that's wrong with this country. I mean look at some of the reasons:

- The US suck.
- The law isn't fair.
- He has a disability.

I mean what kind of a message are we trying to send here? Don't worry if you commit a crime against the US, we'll let you off. Don't worry if you have a disability, we won't hold you accountable. Or maybe, if the law is there but deemed "unfair" by some arbitrary method, you won't face the consequences.

What a dangerous road for the UK to go down.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

More dangerous than extraditing suspects to the US who don't have to provide PF evidence as to why ?

I wouldn't be arguing if the current treaty was fair. Sadly, it isn't and was introduced at a time when the USA clicked its fingers, Tony Blair rolled over and the lack of reciprocity by the USA in the current 2003 beggars belief in its one sideness.

 

[Tute]

Well it's hardly like the treaty was amended after the offence! He did the crime. The crime itself carries extradition to the US, as per extradition laws.

I can fully see where you're coming from but is it fair to just ignore a law because it's not "fair"? As a policeman yourself, surely you can see how this isn't right? Have you ever just let someone off because you yourself don't deem the law to be "fair"?

Admittedly it's not in the same ballpark but I don't consider the speeding laws to be fair. But at the end of the day, if I break them I take the consequences. I don't expect the traffic/police officer to let me off, even if he himself agrees with my views.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I can fully see where you're coming from but is it fair to just ignore a law because it's not "fair"? As a policeman yourself, surely you can see how this isn't right? Have you ever just let someone off because you yourself don't deem the law to be "fair"?

I am not saying that the case should be ignored. What I am saying is that Gary McKinnon should be treated fairly and I can't accept that he would be given the lack of equality in the current extradition laws. No requirement for PF evidence is just not right.

I am a copper yes but that doen't mean I rub my hands in glee at the thought of unfairness or peoples' rights being trampled on. People should be treated fairly and Gary McKinnon can't possibly be treated fairly for reasons I have given.

I haven't let someone off due to laws I may or may not consider unfair as it is something I can't do. I do use discretion where I can though.

Admittedly it's not in the same ballpark but I don't consider the speeding laws to be fair. But at the end of the day, if I break them I take the consequences. I don't expect the traffic/police officer to let me off, even if he himself agrees with my views.

But would you happily be extradited without evidence to answer for it ?

That is my point.

 

[stockhausen]

It's not as if he trained suicide bombers or aught.

An American jihadist who set up the terrorist training camp where the leader of the 2005 London suicide bombers learned how to manufacture explosives, has been quietly released after serving only four and a half years of a possible 70-year sentence, a Guardian investigation has learned.

The unreported sentencing of Mohammed Junaid Babar to "time served" because of what a New York judge described as "exceptional co-operation" that began even before his arrest has raised questions over whether Babar was a US informer at the time he was helping to train the ringleader of the 7 July tube and bus bombings. (The Grauniad)

And the Americans want to sentence Gary McKinnon to 70 years for making them look like complete idiots do they?

 

[EdGey]

70 years is ridiculous.

This.

Ruins someones life.