London hacker loses appeal over US extradition

Move on!? You're dreaming. You'd like us all to 'move on' just so that people stop questioning the extradition treaty. Not just here, but more to the point, with the British govt. and the American govt.

America AND BRITAIN are breaking Human Rights. These Human Rights are written into the British statute books in the form of The Human Rights Act (see link below)

www.direct.gov.uk...

People take different stand points on what Gary did and is alleged to have done, but let's face it, should anybody be extradited with the possibility of being held:

1) without charge indefinitely

2) without any evidence to support the allegation levelled at that person

3) under a system that permits the use of torture as an interrogation tool contrary to the Geneva Convention.

We are all equal. Some are NOT more equal than others. If no evidence is needed, (and that is accepted and Human Rights written into the American Constitution and the British Statute are amended), it should be on equal terms, unilateral, not one sided.

That is the whole point of Gary's protracted fight against the extradition. I think a lot of people just seem to miss that on here. The general consensus in the MSM is that the American people are waking up to their govt. and want to change things. Unfortunately I've noted that most of those in favour of Gary's extradition are Americans.

Don't worry, it's not just the Americans, the British aren't too hot either, but at least with the British it's not a superiority complex that's behind the mindset, just plain bloody apathy!

Originally posted by Nexus1
Move on!? You're dreaming. You'd like us all to 'move on' just so that people stop questioning the extradition treaty. Not just here, but more to the point, with the British govt. and the American govt.

America AND BRITAIN are breaking Human Rights. These Human Rights are written into the British statute books in the form of The Human Rights Act (see link below)

www.direct.gov.uk...

People take different stand points on what Gary did and is alleged to have done, but let's face it, should anybody be extradited with the possibility of being held:

1) without charge indefinitely

2) without any evidence to support the allegation levelled at that person

3) under a system that permits the use of torture as an interrogation tool contrary to the Geneva Convention.

We are all equal. Some are NOT more equal than others. If no evidence is needed, (and that is accepted and Human Rights written into the American Constitution and the British Statute are amended), it should be on equal terms, unilateral, not one sided.

That is the whole point of Gary's protracted fight against the extradition. I think a lot of people just seem to miss that on here. The general consensus in the MSM is that the American people are waking up to their govt. and want to change things. Unfortunately I've noted that most of those in favour of Gary's extradition are Americans.

Don't worry, it's not just the Americans, the British aren't too hot either, but at least with the British it's not a superiority complex that's behind the mindset, just plain bloody apathy!

You guys keep waving the 'human rights violation' flag but obviously don't know what 'human rights violations' are.

1 - Gary was not held indefinitely without charge. He was indicted and the indictment was reviewed by HIS government and found to be valid.

2 - Without any evidence? Are you kidding me? Gary himself ADMITS to doing it. There are tons of evidence.

3 - Torture?? Really?

What in the wide world of sports do any of these things have to do with Gary McKinnon? or even this thread?

Why is the media still being drug into it? The media didn't indict him, the government did.

I think the bottom line is:

1 - He broke the law

2 - He admitted to breaking the law

3 - He is being sent here for a fair trial by a government with a legal and binding extradition treaty.

Originally posted by emsed1

You guys keep waving the 'human rights violation' flag but obviously don't know what 'human rights violations' are.

1 - Gary was not held indefinitely without charge. He was indicted and the indictment was reviewed by HIS government and found to be valid.

2 - Without any evidence? Are you kidding me? Gary himself ADMITS to doing it. There are tons of evidence.

3 - Torture?? Really?

What in the wide world of sports do any of these things have to do with Gary McKinnon? or even this thread?

Why is the media still being drug into it? The media didn't indict him, the government did.

I think the bottom line is:

1 - He broke the law

2 - He admitted to breaking the law

3 - He is being sent here for a fair trial by a government with a legal and binding extradition treaty.

Lmao, a fair trial, classic. If it were a fair trial, they would not have stated no evidence is needed, if it was fair, they would have evidence and have to prove their case. He admitted to hacking, not the 700k claim they have made against him, stating he intentionally destroyed computers and systems, one of them has to be lying, and only one of them is creating new laws to get him, is claiming he was malicious in his actions, but offering no proof.

He has not been held indefinetely...YET, that was a ridiculous retort, the whole point is the Americans have been TRYING to get him, once they have him, he will disappear into GITMO, no trial, although that can only be speculation. Whats the point of a trial anyway, no evidence needed? they may aswell point a finger at him and leave the rest to the CRIMINAL justice system.

How can YOU justify a 70 year sentence for his crime? I know how America justified it, they made up false accusations and created new laws.

EMM

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers


He isn't receiving a 70 year sentence. He is charged with 8 counts, each carries up to 10 years.

The prosecutor in the case has offered a plea agreement so that he could be sentenced to 4 years total.

He would probably put into a federal facility and qualify for early release because he really doesn't seem like a murderous sociopath.

I may be incorrect here, but has he actually stood trial in the US yet? I am under the impression that he is being sent here to face trial and he hasn't even been to court here yet.

Here is a link to the House of Lords decision:

Source

There are several startling points in this document that have conveniently been left out by those claiming 'human rights abuse'.

McKinnon ADMITS to leaving this note on a US Army computer:

“US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days . . . It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year . . . I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels . . .”

Does that honestly sound like he was looking for UFOs?

The House of Lords document also goes on to document the plea agreement McKinnon was offered by US prosecutors.

Mr Stein confirmed that he was authorised to offer the appellant a deal in return for not contesting extradition and for agreeing to plead guilty to two of the counts laid against him of “fraud and related activity in connection with computers". On this basis it was likely that a sentence of 3-4 years (more precisely 37-46 months), probably at the shorter end of that bracket, would be passed and that after serving 6-12 months in the US, the appellant would be repatriated to complete his sentence in the UK. In this event his release date would be determined by reference to the UK’s remission rules namely, in the case of a sentence not exceeding four years, release at the discretion of the parole board after serving half the nominal sentence, release as of right at the two-thirds point. On that basis, he might serve a total of only some eighteen months to two years.

So, um, let's see...

Six months in "Club Fed" with a free plane ticket home to let your own government decide what to do with you.

So it looks like not only was McKinnon an incompetent hacker, he is stupid to boot.

I feel like my human rights are being violated because it's torture to read all the ingorant hooey being bandied about here.

Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

 

He isn't receiving a 70 year sentence. He is charged with 8 counts, each carries up to 10 years.

The prosecutor in the case has offered a plea agreement so that he could be sentenced to 4 years total.

He would probably put into a federal facility and qualify for early release because he really doesn't seem like a murderous sociopath.

I may be incorrect here, but has he actually stood trial in the US yet? I am under the impression that he is being sent here to face trial and he hasn't even been to court here yet.

I read 7 counts, but it doesn't matter, it's 70-80 years for hacking, at the losest sense of the word, it's the US getting revenge for all the trouble he caused, and that isn't just the supposed computers he crashed, IMO, it's for letting slip some of their secrets.

I also saw i an interview that they offered him 4 years, 6-12 months in US, then rest of sentence in UK, Gary agreed and asked for it in writing, guy got annoyed and threatened full prosecution if he didn't agree. I didn't know this had been offered again, but f it has, I'd take it with a pinch of salt.

He hasn't stood trial yet, from what I understand he never will, they originally tried to get him under the terrorism act, this would mean he could be held indefinetely and with this law they brought in for him, without evidence.

EMM

Originally posted by emsed1
Here is a link to the House of Lords decision:

Source

There are several startling points in this document that have conveniently been left out by those claiming 'human rights abuse'.

McKinnon ADMITS to leaving this note on a US Army computer:

“US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days . . . It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year . . . I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels . . .”

He admitted this in interviews, although he didn't admit to saying he would disrupt computers, he mentioned a political message of some sort, angry and abusive, he also left a message once whcih stated "your security is crap, fix it" or something along them lines. Would this supposed message be used as evidence against him? apparently, they don't need evidence.

I feel like my human rights are being violated because it's torture to read all the ingorant hooey being bandied about here.

I know exactly how you feel, and if you consider the charges brought against him and the apparent sentence they have given him, I am truly shocked that you would consider this justice, this is revenge, plain and simple.

EMM

[edit on 5-8-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers


It's only justice if he receives a fair trial. I think that's the point that is being missed here.

He hasn't been tried yet and he will have a chance to refute all the evidence against him.

Unlike this thread, in the United States he is innocent until PROVEN guilty. The government has to prove 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that he did the things he is accused of before he is convicted or sentenced.

As it stands now he hasn't been convicted of anything and he has not been sentenced for anything.

If the evidence is weak it would be in his best interest to SHUT UP and stop providing ammunition to prosecutors with his stupid interviews. He should make them prove his guilt without having his own words turned against him.

Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

 

Unlike this thread, in the United States he is innocent until PROVEN guilty. The government has to prove 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that he did the things he is accused of before he is convicted or sentenced.

Exactly! Anyone who served a jury duty (I did) knows that weak cases don't go very far. It's a loss of face for a DA to present a weak case, and they take it seriously.

Frankly, I hope that IF that person is found guilty by our legal system, he serves a LONG jail term, preferably in a state prison as opposed to the deferal resort community.

I'm really appalled that people cause some very real damage and then are allowed to walk away. If in somebody's mind hacking is not a serious crime, they need their heads examined. Just wait till your bank account is compromised and we'll talk.

What damage? Where?

There is no evidence of damage. The US 'Authorities' have NEVER produced any evidence to substansiate their allegations against Gary.

Again another American opens his mouth only to find another Americans foot already in it! LMFAO!!

Originally posted by Nexus1
What damage? Where?

There is no evidence of damage. The US 'Authorities' have NEVER produced any evidence to substansiate their allegations against Gary.

Again another American opens his mouth only to find another Americans foot already in it! LMFAO!!

The US government hasn't produced any evidence yet because there has not yet been a trial. Is that such a hard concept to understand?

Most of the pro-McKinnon responses contained in this thread seem to have a pernicious anti-American sentiment, rather than logical and well-presented opinions that are contrary to that of the US government.

I can't help but wonder what the sentiments would be like, had the roles been reversed, and McKinnon was an American who had hacked into MI5, BAE Systems, and the Queen Mum's private recipe collection. I'm sure the shouts of righteous indignation and calls for justice in the Crown's system would be heard all the way over here....

He is accused of committing multiple felonies against the people of this country, and by most accounts he does not refute the charges. Like us or not, your country signed the treaty, and he will have to face the people who accuse him of wrongdoing. Your own government concurs. Once again, had the roles been revered, the USG would be shipping his sorry butt across the pond to face the music.

Exactly, our country signed the Treaty. That doesn't mean 'we' the people agree with it!

The sentiments would remain the same no matter what nationality the accused was.

In British law evidence DOES have to be presented prior to trial to decide whether there is a case to answer. This treaty is the ONLY exception to that and that is what we are fighting!



Again another American opens his mouth only to find another Americans foot already in it! LMFAO!!


[edit on 14-8-2008 by Nexus1]

reply to post by buddhasystem


You twit!

Read the arguments above and then re-think before posting such tosh!

It's not just about right or wrong it's about WHERE he should be tried! If this was the other way around the Ameriacns would be doing everything they could to protect their citizen from extradition!

Ross

The European Court Of Human Rights is next I suppose (sorry if its already been mentioned) which basically means that he won't be extradited

Found a story about it:

A European court has asked Britain to delay sending a computer expert to face trial in the United States until it can review his request to block his extradition.

The European Court of Human Rights said on Wednesday it needed to examine Gary McKinnon's complaint that he could face inhumane prison conditions if convicted in the United States.

"The applicant should not be extradited to the United States before midnight on 29 August," so the court can examine his request at its next meeting on August 28, it said in a statement.

Reuters

Info on the court, here

So he's pretty much going nowhere.

Ironic really, that it takes the european courts to stop the british judiciary from bending over for the US.

There's also the political implications - the UK can point to the decision made by a european court and say they did their best, but their hands are tied.

It's also a major case of double standards as shown by this:

“The US have confirmed categorically that they will not provide witnesses to attend UK inquests,” the document sent to every coroner in England and Wales states. “While coroners may continue to ask for US witnesses to attend . . . they should be aware that there will in all cases be a refusal.”

source

And that was only to be witnesses at an inquest for crying out loud.

Time we started taking the same stance as the US does.

How many of these threads are there everytime I post in one two more appear on the same subject.

Any way yes he is guilty the european court may delay the matter but one way or another America will get him.

If you think America has no sway in European matters you are quite naive this is merely his last throw of the dice before facing the music which if he had any sense he would have done right away.

The American courts won't look kindly on all these stunts and nonsense interviews there will come a time in the not so distant future he will deeply regret it.

Originally posted by Nexus1
Exactly, our country signed the Treaty. That doesn't mean 'we' the people agree with it!

The sentiments would remain the same no matter what nationality the accused was.

In British law evidence DOES have to be presented prior to trial to decide whether there is a case to answer. This treaty is the ONLY exception to that and that is what we are fighting!

Again another American opens his mouth only to find another Americans foot already in it! LMFAO!!
[edit on 14-8-2008 by Nexus1]

Mr. McKinnon is being charged because a properly seated grand jury consisting of US citizens determined there was enough evidence against him to charge him with a crime. The evidence was presented to them by prosecutors representing the US government. The evidence does not have to be strong enough to ensure guilt, rather, only strong enough to warrant charges being filed and a trial by court.

Our legal system (which is based on your legal system) provides that all exculpatory evidence be provided to the defense prior to the criminal trial proceedings. However, since Mr. McKinnon is fighting extradition, and has not yet been arraigned, and has not yet registered his defense with the courts, the government has no reason nor will normally be compelled to lay out it evidence for public consumption prior to those events. When Mr. McKinnon appears in court, all will be made crystal clear.

What you are looking for is the US government to publicly lay out its case, in fine detail, prior to the extradition, in order to justify in your mind that the extradition request is valid. The treaty, which your government signed, clearly does not require that. The five Law Lords seem to agree.

The US government is simply following the law and terms of the treaty. All the hard decisions and choices have been made on the part of the British government. If you don't like those decisions, perhaps you should be taking it up with your government, and stop whining about it to us?

Personally, I would offer Mr. McKinnon the opportunity to just write us a check to cover the damages, and be done with him. We really don't need any more unemployed, pot-smoking, 2nd-rate computer analysts clogging up our justice system. We already have an overabundance of those already.

But if he doesn't take the plea bargain, and finds his way over here, I will guarentee you this: the "American foot" you reference will undoubtedly be inserted quickly and forcefully into Mr. McKinnon. However, his mouth will not be the orifice of our choosing.

reply to post by Shamanator



I'd strongly suggest reading up on the European Court of Human Rights and then re-thinking that statement.

The judges appointed to the court won't be swayed by any political pressure from the US or from heads of state in Europe.

The only influence the US has in Europe is a negative one - countries are quite likely to tell the US where to go simply because of EU anti-american sentiment, except the UK and maybe Ireland of course.

We can't even extradite Abu Hamza to the US yet due to this court.
Info here

reply to post by budski


Nice. The fact that the US won't extradite its own citizens means that no-one should extradite theirs to the US. Seems fair enough. You can't have your cake and eat it.

reply to post by Shamanator


And if he was a yank and we were trying to have him extradited here, you would of course just let him go without a fight right? Like hell you would!

This matter could do more damage to UK/USA relations than anything else in recent years.

Ross

Originally posted by nomadrush
reply to post by Shamanator

 

And if he was a yank and we were trying to have him extradited here, you would of course just let him go without a fight right? Like hell you would!

This matter could do more damage to UK/USA relations than anything else in recent years.

Ross

The UK will hand him over they have already agreed to it I fail to see your point no damage is being done to any relationship, the decision was already taken and even the House of Lords agreed with it. As far as the UK authoritiess are concerned Gary isn't worth the trouble.

America could even snatch him if necessary the UK will not protest it there are plenty of American bases to fly him out from. Honestly the decisions been made and no amount of petitions will change anything.

He chose to target America with his terrorism and it is America that will bring justice to him. Hacking the military isn't a game it has consequences severe consequences he will have to be very lucky to ever see daylight again.

I see eighty years as reasonable considering the damage and annoyance he caused.