[Merged] Dangerously lop-sided UK/USA extradition treaty

E.J.Armstrong · 31st July 2009, 08:31 AM

Why should the UK send Ukan nationals to the USA under a one sided extradition treaty with the US (see below for details)? Why should we send anyone to a country that has given the world an official torture programme, official contempt for international law in Guantanamo Bay and secret gulags? Why should the Ukan public accept the world of the US government when it has a recent history of lying systematically to the world?

In any case, why should any Ukan be subjected to the barbaric Usan prison system when we have a perfectly good barbaric prison system of our own?

See
'...In a statement, his lawyer Karen Todner, asked: "What does it take to make this government sit up and listen to the clear public view that Gary McKinnon should not be extradited?
"The extradition treaty with America was brought in to facilitate the extradition of terrorists and it must be clear to anyone following this case that Gary McKinnon is no terrorist.
"Why aren't they stopping the extradition of a man who is clearly vulnerable and who on the accepted evidence suffers from Asperger's?
"Gary is clearly someone who is not equipped to deal with the American penal system and there is clear evidence that he will suffer a severe mental breakdown if extradited."...'

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8177561.stm

See also

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

Where it states
'.."Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required.

No other EU countries would accept this US demand, either politically or constitutionally. Yet the UK government not only acquiesced, but did so taking advantage of arcane legislative powers to see the treaty signed and implemented without any parliamentary debate or scrutiny.

Guantanamo Bay, the failed extradition of Lofti Raissi and US contempt for the International Criminal Court make this decision to remove relevant UK safeguards all the more alarming" ...'

Darat · 31st July 2009, 08:41 AM

I do think the UK should suspend our side of treaty, at least until the USA ratifies their side.

However in this particular case he would still have been up for extradition prior to the new treaty, especially since he has admitted his guilt. Can't see any reason at all for him not to be extradited.

ravdin · 31st July 2009, 08:54 AM

He hacked into the US military defense system. Forgive me if I don't just take his word for it that he didn't have any malicious intentions.

If a US national hacked into the British military's defense infrastructure, I'd be glad to extradite him to the UK for trial.

volatile · 31st July 2009, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

He hacked into the US military defense system. Forgive me if I don't just take his word for it that he didn't have any malicious intentions.

If a US national hacked into the British military's defense infrastructure, I'd be glad to extradite him to the UK for trial.

The key issue here is one of damages. The US are claiming monetary damages to the equipment he hacked. Prior to 2003 (AIUI), an extradition would have required proof of these damages. Afterwards (and the allegation is that the US deliberately waited until the new treaty was brought it), such proof does not have to be provided. No prima-facie case of guilt or even of a crime having taken place is required for extradition - from Britain.

The reverse is not true - an extradition to Britain from the USA would require "reasonable proof" prior to the extradition being granted.

volatile · 31st July 2009, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I do think the UK should suspend our side of treaty, at least until the USA ratifies their side.

However in this particular case he would still have been up for extradition prior to the new treaty, especially since he has admitted his guilt. Can't see any reason at all for him not to be extradited.

It's not a settled legal matter whether his crimes took place in the UK or the US. That's one reason.

And, as I said just now, I think extraditing him prior to the new treaty would have been rather more difficult than it is now. The burdens of proof are different, the standards of evidence are different etc.

Darat · 31st July 2009, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by volatile

The key issue here is one of damages. The US are claiming monetary damages to the equipment he hacked. Prior to 2003 (AIUI), an extradition would have required proof of these damages. Afterwards (and the allegation is that the US deliberately waited until the new treaty was brought it), such proof does not have to be provided. No prima-facie case of guilt or even of a crime having taken place is required for extradition - from Britain.

The reverse is not true - an extradition to Britain from the USA would require "reasonable proof" prior to the extradition being granted.

Understand all that however a plea of "I did it gov" is usually considered quite strong evidence....

Originally Posted by volatile

It's not a settled legal matter whether his crimes took place in the UK or the US. That's one reason.

My view is that the idea that somehow because he was sat in the UK and made an attack on a computer physically based in the USA that was not a crime in the USA takes some rather extraordinary twisting of reality.

Originally Posted by volatile

And, as I said just now, I think extraditing him prior to the new treaty would have been rather more difficult than it is now. The burdens of proof are different, the standards of evidence are different etc.

Oh I agree it would have been more difficult but I still think quite possible given the evidence there is in this case.

volatile · 31st July 2009, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Understand all that however a plea of "I did it gov" is usually considered quite strong evidence....

Well, he admits hacking. He denies causing the damage the US claim he caused, and that's what was at issue in their initial accusation, as I understand it. Added to the fact that these computers weren't passworded or secured seems again to lessen the gravity of his crime. He was initially told he'd get community service in the UK; an American prosecutor has suggested he "might fry". That's the kind of problems at play here.

Sure, he did the crime. But he's got a mental disability, no evidence has been provided as to any damage supposedly caused, and there were some rather worrying machinations in the extradition process. It all leaves a rather sour taste.

Darat · 31st July 2009, 10:09 AM

I have to say what has left a sour taste for me is the various ways he has tried to evade being extradited (not that I blame him or his lawyers for doing so) and has tried to turn it into something more than it was - which is simply a stupid pillock who got caught doing something he knew was wrong.

I am surprised that there hasn't been an attempt made to negotiate a "plea bargain" with the USA (or if there has been I've missed it), something like say a 12 month sentence that is then suspended and he can serve it in the UK.

Rolfe · 31st July 2009, 11:48 AM

Radio 4 news said tonight that he'd refused an offer of a plea bargain for a sentence of about 3 years.

His mother talked for about 20 minutes this morning on Good Morning Scotland about how her son was wronged and so on. I don't know enough about the case to comment. However, she did claim that he was being treated significantly more harshly than others in similar circumstances.

I don't like the asymmetry of this treaty though. I would like to believe that my government was not simply required to hand me over to a foreign power on demand.

Rolfe.

Bob Blaylock · 31st July 2009, 12:20 PM

"Obama wouldn't have this. He doesn't want the first guy extradited for computer misuse to be a guy with Asperger's, a UFO guy. He wouldn't want this. "I'm just praying, please hear us, Obama, because I know you would do the right thing," she added.
·
·
·
"Why aren't they stopping the extradition of a man who is clearly vulnerable and who on the accepted evidence suffers from Asperger's?
"Gary is clearly someone who is not equipped to deal with the American penal system and there is clear evidence that he will suffer a severe mental breakdown if extradited."
·
·
·
His lawyers say the authorities have not given proper consideration to his Asperger's Syndrome, which could have "disastrous consequences," including suicide, if he was to be extradited. They argued he was "eccentric" rather than malicious and should be tried on lesser charges in the UK to protect his mental health.

I do not know for certain, but I have come to strongly suspect that I may have a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome or some other form of autism. In any even, I am unquestionably rather eccentric.

I would never, ever think of using this as an excuse to commit a crime, nor as a reason why, if I did commit a crime, I shouldn't be held fully accountable for the consequences thereof.

His lawyers say the authorities have not given proper consideration to his Asperger's Syndrome, which could have "disastrous consequences," including suicide, if he was to be extradited. They argued he was "eccentric" rather than malicious and should be tried on lesser charges in the UK to protect his mental health.

The time to think about the potential consequences of an action is before you take that action, not after. I have not a bit of sympathy for this cretin. If this is the best argument that he has to make in his defense, then he has no argument at all.

Michael Redman · 31st July 2009, 12:33 PM

According to the BBC citation:

Quote:

US has to prove "reasonable suspicion" for extradition of a British citizen
To extradite an American from the US, British must prove "probable cause"

In other words, to get someone extradited, you need to give the other government what that government will need to justify detaining the suspect in their own country. This is lopsided only to the extent that it is easier for the government in the UK to detain suspects in general.

I don’t see any justification for the statewatch site’s claim that the US only has to make an allegation, but the UK has to provide evidence. Neither side is shipping physical evidence and witnesses across the Atlantic. Just as in the case of a judge issuing a warrant, the police do not round up all their evidence and present it in the judge’s chambers, they describe the evidence and how it leads them to a reasonable suspicion, or probably cause, as the case may be.

How is this dangerously lopsided? Am I missing something here?

Delscottio · 31st July 2009, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Redman

In other words, to get someone extradited, you need to give the other government what that government will need to justify detaining the suspect in their own country. This is lopsided only to the extent that it is easier for the government in the UK to detain suspects in general.

[snip]
How is this dangerously lopsided? Am I missing something here?

I read that as to be extradited to the US all thats needed is akin to an arrest, whereas to be extradited to the UK what needed is similar to what is needed to be charged.

As a lay-person I could be totally wrong and would accept that without a huge argument however there does appear to be a lop sided agreement.

Michael Redman · 31st July 2009, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Delscottio

I read that as to be extradited to the US all thats needed is akin to an arrest, whereas to be extradited to the UK what needed is similar to what is needed to be charged.

Arrested in the US, or arrested in the UK? Charged in the US, or charged in the UK? I think that's where the alleged "lopsidedness" comes from.

Darth Rotor · 31st July 2009, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by E.J.Armstrong

Why should the UK send Ukan nationals to the USA under a one sided extradition treaty with the US (see below for details)?

It is politically convenient to do so.

The rest of your post is emotional rot.

DR

dafydd · 2nd August 2009, 03:21 AM

What is your opinion on this story?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm

Darat · 2nd August 2009, 05:10 AM

What I see happening here is that the criminal's team have latched onto a long standing issue that bothers many people i.e. the "unequal" extradition treaty, as a last ditch attempt to stop him standing trial for the crime he has admitted to committing. It is like when they brought in his Asperger's syndrome.

All we are seeing is fairly well run PR/campaign & legal team working together to use anything they can to stop someone being extradited, which of course is what they are paid to do.

As I said earlier the sour taste I have from this case is from the means his team have tried to use to stop his extradition.

Darat · 2nd August 2009, 05:52 AM

Update from the HS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8180141.stm .

I hadn't realized (or I'd forgotten) that he has also unsuccessfully appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.

I really do struggle to understand the apparent unease with which this case is viewed, he admitted to the crime, there is evidence in the USA to take him to trial, he has unsuccessfully appealed to every single court he could and they have all said, to paraphrase somewhat, "It's a fair cop."

Beerina · 2nd August 2009, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I do think the UK should suspend our side of treaty, at least until the USA ratifies their side.

Fair enough. If you have signed your side of a contract, it is still not binding until the other side does, too. And the UK surely knows no treaty the US signs is valid until properly approved by the US Senate, according to the US constitution.

Quote:

However in this particular case he would still have been up for extradition prior to the new treaty, especially since he has admitted his guilt. Can't see any reason at all for him not to be extradited.

I presume the prior treaty is still in force. I assume it would cover mundane crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism, regardless of the huffing and puffing of US officials.

Shaun from Scotland · 3rd August 2009, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I have to say what has left a sour taste for me is the various ways he has tried to evade being extradited (not that I blame him or his lawyers for doing so) and has tried to turn it into something more than it was - which is simply a stupid pillock who got caught doing something he knew was wrong.

I am surprised that there hasn't been an attempt made to negotiate a "plea bargain" with the USA (or if there has been I've missed it), something like say a 12 month sentence that is then suspended and he can serve it in the UK.

Considering that there are known members of the IRA currently sunning themselves in the USA with the connivance of Irish-American politicians, I think this is the least we should be asking for....

Mark6 · 3rd August 2009, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by E.J.Armstrong

"Why aren't they stopping the extradition of a man who is clearly vulnerable and who on the accepted evidence suffers from Asperger's?
"Gary is clearly someone who is not equipped to deal with the American penal system and there is clear evidence that he will suffer a severe mental breakdown if extradited."...'

BS. I have Aspergers -- was unambiguously diagnosed, no guesses about it. It does not keep me from understanding what is and is not a crime, or from realizing possible consequences of my actions.

Tony Inchpractice · 3rd August 2009, 10:47 AM

[quote=Darat;4962648]All we are seeing is fairly well run PR/campaign & legal team working together to use anything they can to stop someone being extradited, which of course is what they are paid to do.QUOTE]

I don't really know what to make of this case, but your comment above reminds me of the 'Natwest Three'. I don't know if it got much coverage outside of the UK but I can recall the shift in attitude from viewing them as fraudsters to viewing them as victims. There seemed to be the impression they would all spend the rest of their lives being sodomised by mass murderers in maximum security prisons, and in the end they got light sentances mostly served in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest...ign_in_Britain

Sorry if this is a de-rail but I think it's kind of relevant.

Ivor the Engineer · 3rd August 2009, 11:27 AM

I'd have thought the US military would be offering this chap a job, not threatening him with prison.

Soapy Sam · 3rd August 2009, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Update from the HS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8180141.stm .

I really do struggle to understand the apparent unease with which this case is viewed, he admitted to the crime, there is evidence in the USA to take him to trial, he has unsuccessfully appealed to every single court he could and they have all said, to paraphrase somewhat, "It's a fair cop."

One word. Gitmo.

Many people in the UK, while having precious little faith in their own system of justice, no longer have any faith at all in the American version.
That is not the fault of self-confessed hackers. It is the fault and the shame of America.

Also, there's the fact it's hard for people to get their head round hacking as a crime. What was stolen here, if anything? Why was a solitary individual able to hack the systems he is alleged to have entered? Where in hell was their IT security?
What actual harm was done?

When someone manages to shut down the flight computers on an airbus using a netbook- THEN people will take this seriously as a crime. At the moment, most people's response to this issue is a shrug.
When the entire legal machinery of the most powerful nation on Earth comes after one guy living with his Mum in Scotland, it looks like a joke- and that's how most folk see it.

The US authorities would have been far wiser to ask him politely to show exactly what he did, maybe point out what might have resulted from his efforts and sent him home after putting the fear of god into him. What they have done is create a David & Goliath PR fiasco.

ETA- I agree the Asperger's business is a legal red herring.
I do think he should be tried- and jailed in the UK. He committed the crime in cyberspace, but he was in the UK when he did so.

Rolfe · 3rd August 2009, 12:03 PM

Why do you hate America?

Rolfe.

Soapy Sam · 3rd August 2009, 04:51 PM

Because it's there.

Darth Rotor · 3rd August 2009, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

ETA- I agree the Asperger's business is a legal red herring.
I do think he should be tried- and jailed in the UK. He committed the crime in cyberspace, but he was in the UK when he did so.

Does the UK not see it that way?

RandFan · 3rd August 2009, 09:50 PM

Extradition treaties should not be lopsided. There are folks who live all over the world who have murdered in the USA and countries will not extradite the individuals them.

If the UK wanted to stop extraditions for a better deal I'm all for it. I wish like hell we would do that.

RandFan · 3rd August 2009, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Many people in the UK, while having precious little faith in their own system of justice, no longer have any faith at all in the American version.

Well that's irrational. There's no basis to believe that America has abandoned due process or that foreigners cannot get a fair trial in America.

I completely understand the sentiment and I agree, to the extent that there is this sentiment it is the fault of America. We made some very poor choices that will haunt us for some time but believing that it is likely that American courts are statistically more corrupt than the courts of other nations is baseless. (where's your evidence, no anecdotes are not evidence). Abuse and corruption in courts outside of America aren't exactly rare.

Ivor the Engineer · 4th August 2009, 01:23 AM

Does the concept of "justice" in the US usually rely on bargaining?

Rolfe · 4th August 2009, 02:22 AM

The legal situation was explained on the radio yesterday as originating in an imbalance the other way. Previously, it was easier to get an extradition from the USA to Britain than the other way round. This new treaty was supposed to level the playing field, by requiring only "reasonable suspicion" from both sides. However, although Britain has signed it, the USA has not. Thus the situation is unbalanced in the opposite direction, as until the USA signs the treaty, "probable cause" will still be required for west-to-east extraditions.

Like it or not, the public impression of US justice in Britain is poor. It's not just Guantanamo Bay, it's the films and TV programmes that portray US prison life as hell on earth. In contrast, we get Porridge. It's the perennial stories of possibly/probably innocent men on death row, and right-wing governors determined to execute them to keep the bloodthirsty voters happy. On a more rational level, it's distaste for the idea that a British citizen should be jailed thousands of miles from friends and family, for something done in this country.

There is also the point that this whole thing was sold to us as an anti-terrorism measure. We wanted to be able to hand over these evil Muslim extremists who plotted to fly planes into American skyscrapers without them being able to make too much trouble about it. But what's happened? A group of bankers who were engaged in some sort of fraud against a British bank, which (so far as I can gather) didn't even want to prosecute in this country were sent over, followed by one socially-inadequate computer geek who showed off his hacking prowess in the wrong place.

It leaves a bad taste, however rationally you try to explain it.

Rolfe.

Soapy Sam · 4th August 2009, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Does the UK not see it that way?

Opinion seems to be divided about 50/50.

Soapy Sam · 4th August 2009, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Well that's irrational. There's no basis to believe that America has abandoned due process or that foreigners cannot get a fair trial in America.

I completely understand the sentiment and I agree, to the extent that there is this sentiment it is the fault of America. We made some very poor choices that will haunt us for some time but believing that it is likely that American courts are statistically more corrupt than the courts of other nations is baseless. (where's your evidence, no anecdotes are not evidence). Abuse and corruption in courts outside of America aren't exactly rare.

Indeed they are not.
Remember- current eventsand recent history here have effects on public perceptions as well as events over your side of the pond.
The Labour Party has been in power here since 1997 and as with any party in power for a long time, has accumulated a load of resentment as well as some kudos.
The view of Tony Blair as "Bush's poodle" , taking the country into an illegal war for no justifiable reason, was and remains widespread. The sorry business of "extraordinary rendition", - kidnapping by any other name - which involved use of British airports and British agencies- has both disgusted and frightened many observers.
The treatment of the British citizens held at Guantanamo Bay has actually led to sympathy for people who quite probably are Islamic extremists, or at least who were young and dumb enough to associate with such.
The recent PR disaster over Parliament members' expenses has left a very sour view of legislators generally.

You may find all this unfamiliar or irrelevant, but things like this form public opinion.
Right now in this country we have a very cynical view of authority. We don't trust politicians . We don't trust lawyers. When the two are clearly feeding one another as in this case, we trust nobody.
It appears there are political motives for the extradition request. What it looks like to many here is the same old American arrogance that has made America so many friends around the world and the same "New Labour" tendency to roll over and whine when anyone in Washington whistles. This- trust me Randfan, does not make us anti American. It makes us anti authoritarian.

Public perceptions may be quite wrong, but this thread is about the public perception of the case, not the legal technicalities.

Information Analyst · 4th August 2009, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I do think the UK should suspend our side of treaty, at least until the USA ratifies their side.

However in this particular case he would still have been up for extradition prior to the new treaty, especially since he has admitted his guilt. Can't see any reason at all for him not to be extradited.

McKinnon "admitted his guilt" in 2002 when it was being put to him that he would be tried in the UK under the Computer Misuse Act. After that admission, the Director of Public Prosecutions suddenly - some say "mysteriously" - refused to bring that prosecution. Bizarrely, it now seems that the very reason no prosecution was brought was because the Crown Prosecution Service thought that the "evidence" against McKinnon having caused the damage claimed was incredibly weak, a lot of being nothing more than hearsay.

Information Analyst · 4th August 2009, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

What I see happening here is that the criminal's team have latched onto a long standing issue that bothers many people i.e. the "unequal" extradition treaty, as a last ditch attempt to stop him standing trial for the crime he has admitted to committing. It is like when they brought in his Asperger's syndrome.

McKinnon was not diagnosed with Asperger's until a couple of years ago - a psychiatrist/psychologist saw him being interviewed and suggested that he was, and this was subsequently confirmed.

Quote:

All we are seeing is fairly well run PR/campaign & legal team working together to use anything they can to stop someone being extradited, which of course is what they are paid to do.

According to the BBC, his PR agency are working pro bono.

Quote:

As I said earlier the sour taste I have from this case is from the means his team have tried to use to stop his extradition.

And not the curious behaviour of the authorities in both the US and the UK?!

Travis · 14th January 2010, 07:16 AM

UPDATE!

Judge says extraditing Gary McKinnon may be unlawful

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...ng-extradition

I am not pleased with this. He broke the law. Saying he shouldn't serve a prison sentence on the basis that "prison sucks" kinda defeats the whole purpose of prisons. Maybe we should bring back branding in the town square? Or is the contention here that only American prisons "suck" and UK prisons are "paradise?" Which makes me wonder what the point of them is.

Darat · 14th January 2010, 07:22 AM

I'm confused - "a letter"? Is the judge making a legal call (as a judge) on a case before him or is he just writing a letter like you and I can?

Francesca R · 14th January 2010, 07:42 AM

I think it is a legal ruling which puts a stop on the home secretary's plans.

drkitten · 14th January 2010, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

feats the whole purpose of prisons. Maybe we should bring back branding in the town square? Or is the contention here that only American prisons "suck" and UK prisons are "paradise?" Which makes me wonder what the point of them is.

Sort of. My understanding from the article is that McKinnon is to be sent to one of the "supermax" prisons.

Which do suck, by design. They're designed for the people who are too dangerous to be held in ordinary "maximum security" prisons and there's a lot of evidence suggesting that they are, in fact, actively harmful to the mental health of the prisoners housed there. For example, the "ordinary" conditions are essentially solitary confinement, which in normal prisons is reserved as a punishment and cannot (for medical reasons) be applied for a long period of time.

If the US would agree to house him in an normal prison under normal conditions, I suspect the issue could be resolved. But instead, they've simply given vague assurances that he will get "appropriate medical care and treatment," assurances that they demonstrably will not follow through on, given that they plan to put him into a prison that is already known to be medically inappropriate.

ETA: Imagine for an instance, that the country of Ruthenia had two prisons. In prison A, prisoners were treated as they are in UK prisons. In prison B, they are bricked into cells and deprived of food and water. This is not (under Ruthenian law) a death penalty, despite the fact that no prisoner has ever survived longer than six weeks in prison B.

The UK will not (I believe) extradite prisoners who are facing the death penalty [certainly France will not], and will usually demand that the authorities formally forego seeking the death penalty before they will extradite anyone.

Would it be reasonable for the UK to demand similar assurances that a Ruthenian prisoner will not be assigned to prison B? Would it be reasonable for the UK to refuse to hand over any such prisoner unless such assurances are given?

Because that's more or less the situation McKinnon seems to be in.

ponderingturtle · 14th January 2010, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Sort of. My understanding from the article is that McKinnon is to be sent to one of the "supermax" prisons.

Why is he going to a supermax though, is he really that much of a risk or that violent?

Francesca R · 14th January 2010, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

Saying he shouldn't serve a prison sentence on the basis that "prison sucks" kinda defeats the whole purpose of prisons.

It's not so much that they "suck" but they "create a decent probability that the inmate will die" in this case. The whole purpose of prison is to deter, correct and (as necessary) protect society. Not to kill folks. Not to assuage emotions of revenge among third parties either.

31st July 2009, 08:31 AM	#1
E.J.Armstrong Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 3,825	Dangerously lop-sided UK/USA extradition treaty Why should the UK send Ukan nationals to the USA under a one sided extradition treaty with the US (see below for details)? Why should we send anyone to a country that has given the world an official torture programme, official contempt for international law in Guantanamo Bay and secret gulags? Why should the Ukan public accept the world of the US government when it has a recent history of lying systematically to the world? In any case, why should any Ukan be subjected to the barbaric Usan prison system when we have a perfectly good barbaric prison system of our own? See '...In a statement, his lawyer Karen Todner, asked: "What does it take to make this government sit up and listen to the clear public view that Gary McKinnon should not be extradited? "The extradition treaty with America was brought in to facilitate the extradition of terrorists and it must be clear to anyone following this case that Gary McKinnon is no terrorist. "Why aren't they stopping the extradition of a man who is clearly vulnerable and who on the accepted evidence suffers from Asperger's? "Gary is clearly someone who is not equipped to deal with the American penal system and there is clear evidence that he will suffer a severe mental breakdown if extradited."...' From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8177561.stm See also http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm Where it states '.."Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required. No other EU countries would accept this US demand, either politically or constitutionally. Yet the UK government not only acquiesced, but did so taking advantage of arcane legislative powers to see the treaty signed and implemented without any parliamentary debate or scrutiny. Guantanamo Bay, the failed extradition of Lofti Raissi and US contempt for the International Criminal Court make this decision to remove relevant UK safeguards all the more alarming" ...'
	__________________ “Everybody is somebody’s Jew. And today the Palestinians are the Jews of the Israelis.” Primo Levi Capitalist (n) Someone who pays himself and his friends billions of dollars of your money as a reward for destroying your entire economy. Israelis are taught that Palestinians are not human beings like them. Gideon Levy The Punishment of Gaza

31st July 2009, 08:41 AM	#2
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	I do think the UK should suspend our side of treaty, at least until the USA ratifies their side. However in this particular case he would still have been up for extradition prior to the new treaty, especially since he has admitted his guilt. Can't see any reason at all for him not to be extradited.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

31st July 2009, 08:54 AM	#3
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,568	He hacked into the US military defense system. Forgive me if I don't just take his word for it that he didn't have any malicious intentions. If a US national hacked into the British military's defense infrastructure, I'd be glad to extradite him to the UK for trial.
	__________________ If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. -Jayne Cobb Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

31st July 2009, 09:16 AM	#4
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 6,730	Originally Posted by ravdin He hacked into the US military defense system. Forgive me if I don't just take his word for it that he didn't have any malicious intentions. If a US national hacked into the British military's defense infrastructure, I'd be glad to extradite him to the UK for trial. The key issue here is one of damages. The US are claiming monetary damages to the equipment he hacked. Prior to 2003 (AIUI), an extradition would have required proof of these damages. Afterwards (and the allegation is that the US deliberately waited until the new treaty was brought it), such proof does not have to be provided. No prima-facie case of guilt or even of a crime having taken place is required for extradition - from Britain. The reverse is not true - an extradition to Britain from the USA would require "reasonable proof" prior to the extradition being granted.
	__________________ - ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

31st July 2009, 09:18 AM	#5
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 6,730	Originally Posted by Darat I do think the UK should suspend our side of treaty, at least until the USA ratifies their side. However in this particular case he would still have been up for extradition prior to the new treaty, especially since he has admitted his guilt. Can't see any reason at all for him not to be extradited. It's not a settled legal matter whether his crimes took place in the UK or the US. That's one reason. And, as I said just now, I think extraditing him prior to the new treaty would have been rather more difficult than it is now. The burdens of proof are different, the standards of evidence are different etc.
	__________________ - ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

31st July 2009, 09:30 AM	#6
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	Originally Posted by volatile The key issue here is one of damages. The US are claiming monetary damages to the equipment he hacked. Prior to 2003 (AIUI), an extradition would have required proof of these damages. Afterwards (and the allegation is that the US deliberately waited until the new treaty was brought it), such proof does not have to be provided. No prima-facie case of guilt or even of a crime having taken place is required for extradition - from Britain. The reverse is not true - an extradition to Britain from the USA would require "reasonable proof" prior to the extradition being granted. Understand all that however a plea of "I did it gov" is usually considered quite strong evidence.... Originally Posted by volatile It's not a settled legal matter whether his crimes took place in the UK or the US. That's one reason. My view is that the idea that somehow because he was sat in the UK and made an attack on a computer physically based in the USA that was not a crime in the USA takes some rather extraordinary twisting of reality. Originally Posted by volatile And, as I said just now, I think extraditing him prior to the new treaty would have been rather more difficult than it is now. The burdens of proof are different, the standards of evidence are different etc. Oh I agree it would have been more difficult but I still think quite possible given the evidence there is in this case.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

31st July 2009, 09:50 AM	#7
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 6,730	Originally Posted by Darat Understand all that however a plea of "I did it gov" is usually considered quite strong evidence.... Well, he admits hacking. He denies causing the damage the US claim he caused, and that's what was at issue in their initial accusation, as I understand it. Added to the fact that these computers weren't passworded or secured seems again to lessen the gravity of his crime. He was initially told he'd get community service in the UK; an American prosecutor has suggested he "might fry". That's the kind of problems at play here. Sure, he did the crime. But he's got a mental disability, no evidence has been provided as to any damage supposedly caused, and there were some rather worrying machinations in the extradition process. It all leaves a rather sour taste.
	__________________ - ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

31st July 2009, 10:09 AM	#8
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	I have to say what has left a sour taste for me is the various ways he has tried to evade being extradited (not that I blame him or his lawyers for doing so) and has tried to turn it into something more than it was - which is simply a stupid pillock who got caught doing something he knew was wrong. I am surprised that there hasn't been an attempt made to negotiate a "plea bargain" with the USA (or if there has been I've missed it), something like say a 12 month sentence that is then suspended and he can serve it in the UK.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

31st July 2009, 11:48 AM	#9
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	Radio 4 news said tonight that he'd refused an offer of a plea bargain for a sentence of about 3 years. His mother talked for about 20 minutes this morning on Good Morning Scotland about how her son was wronged and so on. I don't know enough about the case to comment. However, she did claim that he was being treated significantly more harshly than others in similar circumstances. I don't like the asymmetry of this treaty though. I would like to believe that my government was not simply required to hand me over to a foreign power on demand. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

31st July 2009, 12:20 PM	#10
Bob Blaylock Forklift Operator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: N38°35' W121°29' Posts: 3,013	"Obama wouldn't have this. He doesn't want the first guy extradited for computer misuse to be a guy with Asperger's, a UFO guy. He wouldn't want this. "I'm just praying, please hear us, Obama, because I know you would do the right thing," she added. · · · "Why aren't they stopping the extradition of a man who is clearly vulnerable and who on the accepted evidence suffers from Asperger's? "Gary is clearly someone who is not equipped to deal with the American penal system and there is clear evidence that he will suffer a severe mental breakdown if extradited." · · · His lawyers say the authorities have not given proper consideration to his Asperger's Syndrome, which could have "disastrous consequences," including suicide, if he was to be extradited. They argued he was "eccentric" rather than malicious and should be tried on lesser charges in the UK to protect his mental health. I do not know for certain, but I have come to strongly suspect that I may have a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome or some other form of autism. In any even, I am unquestionably rather eccentric. I would never, ever think of using this as an excuse to commit a crime, nor as a reason why, if I did commit a crime, I shouldn't be held fully accountable for the consequences thereof. His lawyers say the authorities have not given proper consideration to his Asperger's Syndrome, which could have "disastrous consequences," including suicide, if he was to be extradited. They argued he was "eccentric" rather than malicious and should be tried on lesser charges in the UK to protect his mental health. The time to think about the potential consequences of an action is before you take that action, not after. I have not a bit of sympathy for this cretin. If this is the best argument that he has to make in his defense, then he has no argument at all.

31st July 2009, 12:33 PM	#11
Michael Redman Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 3,063	According to the BBC citation: Quote: US has to prove "reasonable suspicion" for extradition of a British citizen To extradite an American from the US, British must prove "probable cause" In other words, to get someone extradited, you need to give the other government what that government will need to justify detaining the suspect in their own country. This is lopsided only to the extent that it is easier for the government in the UK to detain suspects in general. I don’t see any justification for the statewatch site’s claim that the US only has to make an allegation, but the UK has to provide evidence. Neither side is shipping physical evidence and witnesses across the Atlantic. Just as in the case of a judge issuing a warrant, the police do not round up all their evidence and present it in the judge’s chambers, they describe the evidence and how it leads them to a reasonable suspicion, or probably cause, as the case may be. How is this dangerously lopsided? Am I missing something here?
	__________________ The rule is perfect; in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. - Mark Twain

31st July 2009, 01:23 PM	#12
Delscottio Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 809	Originally Posted by Michael Redman In other words, to get someone extradited, you need to give the other government what that government will need to justify detaining the suspect in their own country. This is lopsided only to the extent that it is easier for the government in the UK to detain suspects in general. [snip] How is this dangerously lopsided? Am I missing something here? I read that as to be extradited to the US all thats needed is akin to an arrest, whereas to be extradited to the UK what needed is similar to what is needed to be charged. As a lay-person I could be totally wrong and would accept that without a huge argument however there does appear to be a lop sided agreement.
Delscottio Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 809

31st July 2009, 04:10 PM	#13
Michael Redman Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: St. Paul, MN Posts: 3,063	Originally Posted by Delscottio I read that as to be extradited to the US all thats needed is akin to an arrest, whereas to be extradited to the UK what needed is similar to what is needed to be charged. Arrested in the US, or arrested in the UK? Charged in the US, or charged in the UK? I think that's where the alleged "lopsidedness" comes from.
	__________________ The rule is perfect; in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. - Mark Twain

31st July 2009, 05:28 PM	#14
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by E.J.Armstrong Why should the UK send Ukan nationals to the USA under a one sided extradition treaty with the US (see below for details)? It is politically convenient to do so. The rest of your post is emotional rot. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

2nd August 2009, 03:21 AM	#15
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,482	Should UK hacker be extradited? What is your opinion on this story? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm

2nd August 2009, 05:10 AM	#16
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	What I see happening here is that the criminal's team have latched onto a long standing issue that bothers many people i.e. the "unequal" extradition treaty, as a last ditch attempt to stop him standing trial for the crime he has admitted to committing. It is like when they brought in his Asperger's syndrome. All we are seeing is fairly well run PR/campaign & legal team working together to use anything they can to stop someone being extradited, which of course is what they are paid to do. As I said earlier the sour taste I have from this case is from the means his team have tried to use to stop his extradition.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

2nd August 2009, 05:52 AM	#17
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	Update from the HS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8180141.stm . I hadn't realized (or I'd forgotten) that he has also unsuccessfully appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. I really do struggle to understand the apparent unease with which this case is viewed, he admitted to the crime, there is evidence in the USA to take him to trial, he has unsuccessfully appealed to every single court he could and they have all said, to paraphrase somewhat, "It's a fair cop."
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

2nd August 2009, 11:29 AM	#18
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Darat I do think the UK should suspend our side of treaty, at least until the USA ratifies their side. Fair enough. If you have signed your side of a contract, it is still not binding until the other side does, too. And the UK surely knows no treaty the US signs is valid until properly approved by the US Senate, according to the US constitution. Quote: However in this particular case he would still have been up for extradition prior to the new treaty, especially since he has admitted his guilt. Can't see any reason at all for him not to be extradited. I presume the prior treaty is still in force. I assume it would cover mundane crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism, regardless of the huffing and puffing of US officials.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

3rd August 2009, 04:21 AM	#19
Shaun from Scotland Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 858	Originally Posted by Darat I have to say what has left a sour taste for me is the various ways he has tried to evade being extradited (not that I blame him or his lawyers for doing so) and has tried to turn it into something more than it was - which is simply a stupid pillock who got caught doing something he knew was wrong. I am surprised that there hasn't been an attempt made to negotiate a "plea bargain" with the USA (or if there has been I've missed it), something like say a 12 month sentence that is then suspended and he can serve it in the UK. Considering that there are known members of the IRA currently sunning themselves in the USA with the connivance of Irish-American politicians, I think this is the least we should be asking for....
	__________________ "Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" Statements Richard G cannot back up - "You may not own a rifle, or a pistol in the U.K.. Period. One shotgun per person is allowed, under heavy regulations. Most owners have turned those in also, because the regulations, and registration are too difficult and burdensome"

3rd August 2009, 09:44 AM	#20
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178	Originally Posted by E.J.Armstrong "Why aren't they stopping the extradition of a man who is clearly vulnerable and who on the accepted evidence suffers from Asperger's? "Gary is clearly someone who is not equipped to deal with the American penal system and there is clear evidence that he will suffer a severe mental breakdown if extradited."...' BS. I have Aspergers -- was unambiguously diagnosed, no guesses about it. It does not keep me from understanding what is and is not a crime, or from realizing possible consequences of my actions.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

3rd August 2009, 10:47 AM	#21
Tony Inchpractice Student Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Slough of Despond Posts: 41	[quote=Darat;4962648]All we are seeing is fairly well run PR/campaign & legal team working together to use anything they can to stop someone being extradited, which of course is what they are paid to do.QUOTE] I don't really know what to make of this case, but your comment above reminds me of the 'Natwest Three'. I don't know if it got much coverage outside of the UK but I can recall the shift in attitude from viewing them as fraudsters to viewing them as victims. There seemed to be the impression they would all spend the rest of their lives being sodomised by mass murderers in maximum security prisons, and in the end they got light sentances mostly served in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest...ign_in_Britain Sorry if this is a de-rail but I think it's kind of relevant.
	Last edited by Tony Inchpractice; 3rd August 2009 at 11:29 AM. Reason: I wasn't making much sense.

3rd August 2009, 11:27 AM	#22
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 9,553	I'd have thought the US military would be offering this chap a job, not threatening him with prison.
	__________________ My Blog.

3rd August 2009, 11:55 AM	#23
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Originally Posted by Darat Update from the HS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8180141.stm . I really do struggle to understand the apparent unease with which this case is viewed, he admitted to the crime, there is evidence in the USA to take him to trial, he has unsuccessfully appealed to every single court he could and they have all said, to paraphrase somewhat, "It's a fair cop." One word. Gitmo. Many people in the UK, while having precious little faith in their own system of justice, no longer have any faith at all in the American version. That is not the fault of self-confessed hackers. It is the fault and the shame of America. Also, there's the fact it's hard for people to get their head round hacking as a crime. What was stolen here, if anything? Why was a solitary individual able to hack the systems he is alleged to have entered? Where in hell was their IT security? What actual harm was done? When someone manages to shut down the flight computers on an airbus using a netbook- THEN people will take this seriously as a crime. At the moment, most people's response to this issue is a shrug. When the entire legal machinery of the most powerful nation on Earth comes after one guy living with his Mum in Scotland, it looks like a joke- and that's how most folk see it. The US authorities would have been far wiser to ask him politely to show exactly what he did, maybe point out what might have resulted from his efforts and sent him home after putting the fear of god into him. What they have done is create a David & Goliath PR fiasco. ETA- I agree the Asperger's business is a legal red herring. I do think he should be tried- and jailed in the UK. He committed the crime in cyberspace, but he was in the UK when he did so.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Last edited by Soapy Sam; 3rd August 2009 at 12:00 PM.

3rd August 2009, 12:03 PM	#24
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	Why do you hate America? Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

3rd August 2009, 04:51 PM	#25
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Because it's there.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

3rd August 2009, 04:54 PM	#26
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam ETA- I agree the Asperger's business is a legal red herring. I do think he should be tried- and jailed in the UK. He committed the crime in cyberspace, but he was in the UK when he did so. Does the UK not see it that way?
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

3rd August 2009, 09:50 PM	#27
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,417	Extradition treaties should not be lopsided. There are folks who live all over the world who have murdered in the USA and countries will not extradite the individuals them. If the UK wanted to stop extraditions for a better deal I'm all for it. I wish like hell we would do that.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd August 2009, 09:55 PM	#28
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,417	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam Many people in the UK, while having precious little faith in their own system of justice, no longer have any faith at all in the American version. Well that's irrational. There's no basis to believe that America has abandoned due process or that foreigners cannot get a fair trial in America. I completely understand the sentiment and I agree, to the extent that there is this sentiment it is the fault of America. We made some very poor choices that will haunt us for some time but believing that it is likely that American courts are statistically more corrupt than the courts of other nations is baseless. (where's your evidence, no anecdotes are not evidence). Abuse and corruption in courts outside of America aren't exactly rare.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 3rd August 2009 at 09:56 PM.

4th August 2009, 01:23 AM	#29
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 9,553	Does the concept of "justice" in the US usually rely on bargaining?
	__________________ My Blog.

4th August 2009, 02:22 AM	#30
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	The legal situation was explained on the radio yesterday as originating in an imbalance the other way. Previously, it was easier to get an extradition from the USA to Britain than the other way round. This new treaty was supposed to level the playing field, by requiring only "reasonable suspicion" from both sides. However, although Britain has signed it, the USA has not. Thus the situation is unbalanced in the opposite direction, as until the USA signs the treaty, "probable cause" will still be required for west-to-east extraditions. Like it or not, the public impression of US justice in Britain is poor. It's not just Guantanamo Bay, it's the films and TV programmes that portray US prison life as hell on earth. In contrast, we get Porridge. It's the perennial stories of possibly/probably innocent men on death row, and right-wing governors determined to execute them to keep the bloodthirsty voters happy. On a more rational level, it's distaste for the idea that a British citizen should be jailed thousands of miles from friends and family, for something done in this country. There is also the point that this whole thing was sold to us as an anti-terrorism measure. We wanted to be able to hand over these evil Muslim extremists who plotted to fly planes into American skyscrapers without them being able to make too much trouble about it. But what's happened? A group of bankers who were engaged in some sort of fraud against a British bank, which (so far as I can gather) didn't even want to prosecute in this country were sent over, followed by one socially-inadequate computer geek who showed off his hacking prowess in the wrong place. It leaves a bad taste, however rationally you try to explain it. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

4th August 2009, 02:44 AM	#31
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Does the UK not see it that way? Opinion seems to be divided about 50/50.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

4th August 2009, 03:05 AM	#32
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Originally Posted by RandFan Well that's irrational. There's no basis to believe that America has abandoned due process or that foreigners cannot get a fair trial in America. I completely understand the sentiment and I agree, to the extent that there is this sentiment it is the fault of America. We made some very poor choices that will haunt us for some time but believing that it is likely that American courts are statistically more corrupt than the courts of other nations is baseless. (where's your evidence, no anecdotes are not evidence). Abuse and corruption in courts outside of America aren't exactly rare. Indeed they are not. Remember- current eventsand recent history here have effects on public perceptions as well as events over your side of the pond. The Labour Party has been in power here since 1997 and as with any party in power for a long time, has accumulated a load of resentment as well as some kudos. The view of Tony Blair as "Bush's poodle" , taking the country into an illegal war for no justifiable reason, was and remains widespread. The sorry business of "extraordinary rendition", - kidnapping by any other name - which involved use of British airports and British agencies- has both disgusted and frightened many observers. The treatment of the British citizens held at Guantanamo Bay has actually led to sympathy for people who quite probably are Islamic extremists, or at least who were young and dumb enough to associate with such. The recent PR disaster over Parliament members' expenses has left a very sour view of legislators generally. You may find all this unfamiliar or irrelevant, but things like this form public opinion. Right now in this country we have a very cynical view of authority. We don't trust politicians . We don't trust lawyers. When the two are clearly feeding one another as in this case, we trust nobody. It appears there are political motives for the extradition request. What it looks like to many here is the same old American arrogance that has made America so many friends around the world and the same "New Labour" tendency to roll over and whine when anyone in Washington whistles. This- trust me Randfan, does not make us anti American. It makes us anti authoritarian. Public perceptions may be quite wrong, but this thread is about the public perception of the case, not the legal technicalities.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

4th August 2009, 06:06 AM	#33
Information Analyst Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,105	Originally Posted by Darat I do think the UK should suspend our side of treaty, at least until the USA ratifies their side. However in this particular case he would still have been up for extradition prior to the new treaty, especially since he has admitted his guilt. Can't see any reason at all for him not to be extradited. McKinnon "admitted his guilt" in 2002 when it was being put to him that he would be tried in the UK under the Computer Misuse Act. After that admission, the Director of Public Prosecutions suddenly - some say "mysteriously" - refused to bring that prosecution. Bizarrely, it now seems that the very reason no prosecution was brought was because the Crown Prosecution Service thought that the "evidence" against McKinnon having caused the damage claimed was incredibly weak, a lot of being nothing more than hearsay.
	Last edited by Information Analyst; 4th August 2009 at 06:25 AM.

4th August 2009, 06:13 AM	#34
Information Analyst Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,105	Originally Posted by Darat What I see happening here is that the criminal's team have latched onto a long standing issue that bothers many people i.e. the "unequal" extradition treaty, as a last ditch attempt to stop him standing trial for the crime he has admitted to committing. It is like when they brought in his Asperger's syndrome. McKinnon was not diagnosed with Asperger's until a couple of years ago - a psychiatrist/psychologist saw him being interviewed and suggested that he was, and this was subsequently confirmed. Quote: All we are seeing is fairly well run PR/campaign & legal team working together to use anything they can to stop someone being extradited, which of course is what they are paid to do. According to the BBC, his PR agency are working pro bono. Quote: As I said earlier the sour taste I have from this case is from the means his team have tried to use to stop his extradition. And not the curious behaviour of the authorities in both the US and the UK?!

14th January 2010, 07:16 AM	#35
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,960	UPDATE! Judge says extraditing Gary McKinnon may be unlawful http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...ng-extradition I am not pleased with this. He broke the law. Saying he shouldn't serve a prison sentence on the basis that "prison sucks" kinda defeats the whole purpose of prisons. Maybe we should bring back branding in the town square? Or is the contention here that only American prisons "suck" and UK prisons are "paradise?" Which makes me wonder what the point of them is.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy Last edited by Travis; 14th January 2010 at 07:18 AM.