MacKinnon Extradition Blocked By UK Home Secretary 258
RockDoctor writes "BBC radio news (2012-10-16 GMT 13:00) is reporting that the Home Secretary has blocked the extradition of Gary MacKinnon to the U.S. for (alleged) computer hacking crimes. Paraphrasing: the Director of Public Prosecutions is going to have to decide if there is sufficient evidence for him to be tried in the UK for crimes committed in (or from) the UK.
"
(Also at The Independent.)
Even a stopped clock... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even a stopped clock gets it right twice a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a stopped clock gets it right twice a day.
Still living in the analog era, I see.
Re: (Score:2)
A clock flashing 12:00 is also right twice a day, assuming it doesn't differentiate AM/PM.
Re: (Score:2)
Of the digi clocks I've seen about 50% indicate am or pm. Even if they do, they're still right once a day, which is more that you can say for most governments around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't bothered resetting our microwave clock, so it says "-:--"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A good decision (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably more so the "and friends", two of whom appear to have been doing nothing more than running a website providing information, something I was under the mistaken impression that the US defends vigorously as free speech, even when it is bigotted speech full of hatred. Hamza himself does appear to have been directly involved in crimes physically committed on American soil, so extradition is appropriate in his case. The remaining two friends are accused of involvement in attacks on the US embassy in Yemen, which is slightly more dubious, but still as physical attacks, and given that there is no reasonable expectation that Yemen will pursue appropriate prosecution, I don't think any comparison to MacKinnon's case is justified.
USA - Average Joe (Score:4, Insightful)
On a personal note, I'm shocked the government made a choice for a person over a corporation/lobby group/foreign power. First time In my life I think I've agreed with a home secretary?!?! must be getting old.
Re: (Score:3)
Does the US citizen - Average Joe (or above average) know or care about this?
On a personal note, I'm shocked the government made a choice for a person over a corporation/lobby group/foreign power. First time In my life I think I've agreed with a home secretary?!?! must be getting old.
This is an unusual case, which has found most of us "liberals" on the same side as the BNP and Daily Mail.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but for the worst reasons possible. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the right decision, finally, but for the worse reasons.
Suicide risk?
Well, that implies that you shouldn't extradite because aof suicide risk. What about murderers? What about holding "terrorist" suspects for 10 years without trial? Does that lead to a suicide risk? Should you simply not incarcerate people who are at risk of suicide?
He never left the UK and if what he did was illegal here, then he should be tried herre.
It is simply not right that one must know the laws of an artibray number of other countries even if you've never visited them. Secondly, the guy has a mental condition. He should be getting help (on the NHS no less) than this treatment.
Finally, the authorities should have been ashamed into silence that their systems were insecure. Instead, they are simply lying about the damage done. If sensitive systems were that insecure, then that amount of fixing/upgrading/replacing was already required whether or not they successfully detected an intrusion.
In other worde they are also lying about the damage.
Still, good for McKinnon and a weak blow for justice. The right decision for the wrong reasons is better than the wrong decisions.
Now all we need is to overturn this ludicrous, one-sided and outright unjust act before too many more lives are ruined.
Re: (Score:3)
This has all been an enormous waste of time for a crime that is more petty then minor shoplifting.
As said above (and in many other similar cases eg. the ones listed in Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown"), the "damage" cannot be honestly quantified in the amounts claimed. It's funny how perjury doesn't apply to such wild claims from t
Re:Right, but for the worst reasons possible. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hacking into systems you don't have official access to is illegal in the UK just as much as it is in the US. So he didn't need to know the laws of another country to know that what he did was illegal.
Yeah, buit it won't get you life in a PIMTA prison in the UK. Apparently you need to know enough about US law to know that breaking the law in the UK is a bad idea because you might be hauled overseas to a much nastier legal system.
If you stand on the French-German border on the French side and I on the German side and I shoot you, wouldn't I have commited a crime in France (as well as in Germany, of course)?
It simplifies things greatly that it's the same crime with the same penalties in both places more or less. Not the case here. And yeah sure. Why not try you in Germany? You were in Germany when you committed murder. Get tried there.
He has Asperger's Syndrome. That doesn't stop him from knowing right from wrong or how laws work.
How well do you know details of his mental condition?
So if I break into your house because you have crappy locks it's not that bad?
No, but if you try to claim the cost of upgrading the locks is because of me breaking in, then you'd be a liar, like the US government in this case.
Also, the costs probably are not only about upgrading the security system but also analysing what data he accessed and whether he changed anything, copied any codes that need to be changed etc.
Except that they needed to do that anyway. Once they found that their systems were insecure and on the public internet, they should have followed those procedures. In case someone muuch more competent, e.g. from a foreign power had been in as well but had hidden his tracks much better.
If they'd been following any kind of reasonable position it would have cost exactly the same if a security consultant told them that their systems were insecure.
That doesn't make what McKinnon did a not a crime, but it does make them a bunch of lying assholes.
Re:Right, but for the worst reasons possible. (Score:4, Informative)
"Also, the costs probably are not only about upgrading the security system"
He got in because they used a blank password for some accounts.
I'd argue that no cost was caused the US in terms of fixing the security holes, because it's something their staff should be doing routinely as part of their job in the first place so effectively in this respect all Gary did was expose the fact that the government was paying staff who weren't doing what they were paid to do.
I agree there will have been some cost to doing an audit of what he accessed etc. but nothing close to the inflated figure the US provided, or if it was that high, then they should again thank him for making them aware of the fact they're paying their IT staff and/or contractors a good few orders of magnitude too much.
Re: (Score:2)
It is simply not right that one must know the laws of an artibray number of other countries even if you've never visited them.
Hacking into systems you don't have official access to is illegal in the UK just as much as it is in the US.
So he didn't need to know the laws of another country to know that what he did was illegal.
Right. So, as a Scot, when in England, he allegedly committed a crime in England which was against English law. So he should be tried in England, and, if found guilty, imprisoned in Scotland (because he's one of our citizens, and in Europe there's a general presumption that people should be imprisoned in their own country). The USA has no role in this, other than to sit quiet and await the outcome of the trial.
Re:Right, but for the worst reasons possible. (Score:5, Insightful)
And that he wasn't in the US when he commited a crime in the US is a weak argument too. If you stand on the French-German border on the French side and I on the German side and I shoot you, wouldn't I have commited a crime in France (as well as in Germany, of course)?
This is absolutely fundamental to why this extradition cannot have been allowed to occur. He is not a spy, he didn't send the information he uncovered to anyone else, and he didn't cause any damage beyond identifying a weakness in security which shouldn't have existed in the first place. In the UK, under the provisions of the Computer Misuse Act, he'd get a maximum of 2 years in prison. In the US, he'd be tried as a terrorist and faced sixty years in federal prison.
Let's take that to your France / Germany analogy above. You stand on the border and throw a stone at a policeman in France. In Germany, you're charged with assault and get probation. If extradited to France, you're charged with GBH and attempted murder and you spend the rest of your natural life in an 8 x 6 cage with a hairy-backed bear named Jim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you stand on the French-German border on the French side and I on the German side and I shoot you, wouldn't I have commited a crime in France (as well as in Germany, of course)?
Depends. Is this during or after World War 2?
David Cameron had no alternative ...... (Score:4, Interesting)
When he was in opposition, he scored a lot of political points by defending Gary MacKinnon, accusing the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown Labour Party of being US lapdogs.
If he hadn't blocked the extradition, it would have been a PR nightmare for him and the Conservatives.
Re:David Cameron had no alternative ...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the timing I can't help but feel we gave them Abu Hamza and the other 4 'terror' suspects in return for them letting this go without a major fuss. That both your premise and mine both are based on the assumption that actual human rights and morality were largely irrelevant says something about our countries politics.
I have to confess that, while I don't think Gary McKinnon should be extradited to the US to face trial for an alleged offence committed in England, I can't help suspecting that the 'medical condition' which he has which gave rise to this decision was 'white skin syndrome'.
right idea wrong reasons (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Looks good at home (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I figure most Brits will be for this, even if it's just for them sticking it to the US.
Yea ... it does feel good!
Re: (Score:2)
The US government that is, not the US in general which is full of very nice people.
Re:Looks good at home (Score:4, Funny)
Too late, they're going to invade now anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Color me surprised (Score:2, Funny)
Whoah, the British finally found some amount of courage ? Who knew, who knew. Maybe there's hope after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The really interesting bit... (Score:2)
is not that Gary McKinnon is not going to be extradited, but that judges will have some discretion to decide whether an accused person should be tried in the UK instead of extraditing that person abroad.
No evidence, no extradition (Score:5, Informative)
In public rhetoric they claims McKinnon is a cyber-terrorist, who committed the biggest military hack of all time and did a million worth of damage, and left the US at risk.
In terms of evidence they offered, they offered nothing. Zip.
Nobody should be extradited without evidence. He's not a cyber-terrorist, the USA isn't facing cyber-pearl-harbor, they talked up his case a lot but they offered no evidence of any of it. Under that circumstance he should be extradited.
However, the UK-US extradition law doesn't require evidence of a crime, the US can say "We want Bob Smith, he's 6'2", blue eyes, last lived at 32b The High Street, Slough", "we want him for murder", "murder is a crime in the US serious enough to use the expedited extradition". But they don't have to offer any evidence that "Bob Smith" murdered anyone. It's not part of the extradition on the UK to US leg, the other way around, US to UK, the Americans insist on evidence showing that Bob Smith actually did murder someone.
Because the evidence isn't part of the extradition, Bob can't challenge it. Being innocent is no defense against extradition under this treaty. Innocent or guilty the treaty makes no distinction. Which is why no-one should be extradited under this.
The Parliament investigation explains in details the problems with it:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtrights/156/15608.htm
189. Mr David Bermingham, argued that:
"if you are a United States citizen who is wanted for extradition by the United Kingdom, you have an absolute right to a hearing in a United States court where you can challenge the evidence that has been put in front of the court and present evidence of your own. If, by contrast, you are a United Kingdom citizen or somebody ordinarily resident here who is wanted by the United States, you have no such right."[195]
190. In Mr Bermingham's opinion, the UK extradited people to the US "without so much as a scrap of evidence being put in front of a UK court" which was "a grave disservice to our citizens and other people who may be the subject of extradition."[196]
195. Article 5(3) creates a two-fold problem because it allows the extradition of individuals on the basis of evidence which the CPS has deemed insufficient to prosecute in this country and the extradition of individuals where the CPS has decided there is no public interest in prosecuting.
Hard to keep seperate issues seperate (Score:2)
A lot of people seem to think this is a good result because they don't think hacking should be outlawed, or they hate the US or think the US has to harsh a penal system.
The real fact however is that because a person claimed that Asperger would cause him to commit suicide, escaped facing trial a healthy person would have had to face for his actions.
I don't like the idea of 'get out of jail free' cards. I remember a case were a woman killed her husband and claimed temporary insanity because of her period. Fin
Re:Hard to keep seperate issues seperate (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple sentence, community service and supervised internet access until he can prove he won't be acting like an ass again.
Actually this is pretty much what he's asking for. He wants to be tried in the UK (as he was a UK citizen commiting the "crime" in the UK.) The authorities want to ship him to the US where he would face 60 years in jail, which is a ridiculous sentence for anyone.
USA can't evolve (Score:2)
I have made little progress just discussing ideas with my countrymen and if I mention the idea is from Europe then I'm doomed from the start. I don't know why we have to dismiss everything more civil nations do; or merely dismiss something "foreign" and these are just ideas, facts, or logic which can have no ownership or nationality (despite the "IP" idiocy.)
We only have crime here and we have a broken legal system based upon terrorizing defendants to the benefit the legal profession. Crazy acts do not exi
It was the right choice (Score:2)
Re:A pity (Score:5, Informative)
He has an independently verified medical condition which makes him a high-risk for suicide. That doesn't make him innocent of his crimes; if you'd bother to read the article you'd see his case is now under consideration for prosecution in the UK.
This has stopped his extradition, not him being liable for his actions.
Re:A pity (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always thought that someone should be prosecuted in England for alleged crimes allegedly committed in England. The US may be the alleged victim in this case but I don't see that it has any other role.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A pity (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that's how everyone sees it. Except for the Americans who want to impose their law everywhere.
And the British politicians who agreed to an extremely one-sided extradition treaty with the US (and today, in parliament, a number of MPs defended the treaty as "fair").
Re: (Score:2)
What everyone seems to be missing is that the answer to this lies in the terms of the extradition treaty between the two countries.
Clearly that treaty allows for the extradition of people who commit crimes against the US to the US for trial and possible punishment.
The Home Secretary is taking a rather extraordinary action by overriding a court decision in this case. Of course it won't amount to much given the relationship between the two countries involved, except perhaps a bit of tit for tat.
As far as the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A pity (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So now his sentence is solitary confinement for accessing a computer which had no security on it?
You make it sound like the fact that the computer had no security on it makes it OK to access it. Fundamentally, accessing the computer was wrong - maybe an embarrassment for the computer owner, but unauthorised access is unauthorised access, You could extend that logic to say it's OK to mug little old ladies because they're defence-less and open to attack. A crime is a crime is a crime, regardless of how hard to have to work to perpetrate it.
Re: (Score:2)
but unauthorised access is unauthorised access
Is it unauthorized access if the computer owner authorized access to everyone and their dog, even if they didn't realize they did? Why?
You could extend that logic to say it's OK to mug little old ladies
A person being defenseless is not the same thing as that person welcoming any and all actions against them. And no, the little old lady choosing to calmly follow the mugger's instructions because she realizes what would happen if she tried anything does not count as welcoming any and all actions against her.
Re:A pity (Score:5, Insightful)
60 years is way over the top and a sentence that U.S. judges would have been likely to hand down given his efforts to "evade justice" by delaying extradition for so long. It's about time the U.K. started protecting it's own citizens from over-zealous foreign interference. U.S. citizens would demand the same of their government.
He committed a crime in the U.K., it's always where he should have been tried. He would have served his time and been a free man long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
nobody cares what the constitution says nowadays.
Either way, do you remember that stink related to provisions of NDAA which allow the govt to detain Americans indefitely? Or the stink related to the assassinations of American citizen Al-Awlaqi and his 16yr old son, also American citizen, ordered by Obama administration?
Nobody bats an eye in case of suspected terrorists rotting in Guantanamo and brown peons killed daily by the drones, so apparently 'Muricans do see the difference - there are them, the chosen
Re:A pity (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, the constitution does NOT apply to foreigners in the US.
I am an immigrant (legal) and the documents specifically state that I am not allowed to present myself as a US Citizen since many constitution protections do not apply to me:
Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure - DHS and other police forces are allowed to seize and search me at any time
Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel - DHS trials are closed to the public, no jury, can last well beyond the time your alien status expires (at which point you have to leave and the case is closed) and decisions made by a DHS judge on my status as an alien resident cannot be challenged by state or federal judges.
Besides that I do not have the right to vote or seek political office on a federal level.
The same fate is slowly coming for US citizens as well and it has already started in airports and anywhere within 100 miles of an international border or airport.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A pity (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fed up of seeing people abuse provisions that are put in place to protect those with genuine medical/pschological needs and getting away with it.
I've never met the man, have you? Odd how you can diagnose a person as "sane" with no medical background and never having met him. Personally, I tend to believe the medical professionals who actually studied medicine and who actally had face to face contact, rather than from some stupid newspaper reporter.
TLDR: Why do you doubt the diagnosis of a health professional?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fed up of seeing people abuse provisions that are put in place to protect those with genuine medical/pschological needs
Genuine according to who? I've admittedly not been following this too closely, but I was under the impression that actual, certified doctors have said that he has a genuine medical/psychological condition. Do you have a problem with the diagnosis itself? The particular doctors who made the diagnosis? The regulatory body they report to? Or do I just have the wrong understanding?
Re:A pity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A pity (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. He is probably guilty, but he should be tried in the UK, for the crimes he committed THERE, not in the U.S. (where he's never even been).
Clearly Guilty (Score:5, Funny)
No one is saying he's innocent.
Indeed - he is guilty of embarrassing the pentagon which might be a truly terrible crime in the US but is somewhat less so in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is saying he's innocent.
He's not convicted yet.
Re:A pity (Score:4, Insightful)
So what exactly were his crimes? What damage did he cause? It's pretty much proven that he isn't a foreign agent and did not forward any information to other people.
Re:A pity (Score:5, Insightful)
So what exactly were his crimes? What damage did he cause? It's pretty much proven that he isn't a foreign agent and did not forward any information to other people.
We needed a boogy man to scare people with now that Kevin Mitnick isn't so scary. The modern witch hunt... some individuals must suffer for the amusement of the masses and control games of the elite. Our lapdogs in the UK are not cooperating. Bush probably would have already started bombing the UK in retaliation, but Obama will probably think of some other way to screw things up.
Its amusing to strip away the internet BS in his case and come up with analogies to breaking into a public library and photocopying stuff from the restricted collection. Yeah, he's a crook, but so small time as to scarcely be worth looking at, getting the USA witch trial treatment is a wee bit excessive.
Re:A pity (Score:5, Informative)
Unauthorised access to computer material contrary to S1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990. The maximum penalty for that in the UK is 2 years in prison, although as this is not a very serious example of the offence, it is likely he would get a much lower prison term, probably in the order of a couple of months at most.
Re: (Score:2)
And he will be tried for that of course. Just not extradited.
What were his crimes? (Score:5, Insightful)
On top of that, he demonstrated that it was simple, to the point of trivial to gain access to them and the information they contained. He was never going to be given a fair trial in the USA (as nobody who is extradited to the US ever gets - the cost of mounting a legal defence in the country makes that impossible) and was going to be part of a show trial to make an example of.
The biggest tragedy in this whole sorry episode is that it went on for so long and the next biggest tragedy is that so many other people were extradited to the USA and became victims of it's imprisonment (I nearly said "justice") system.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Awwww.. has society been being nice to people again, and delivering appropriate justice rather than the fantasies of right-wing bullies.
That must really make assholes like you mad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you listen to the Justice Department, it's the biggest hack of all time*, ever ever ever, cross their hearts and hope to die. I'm glad we seem to be basing this on the motive of a man, taking into account his affliction with Asperger's.
*This seems to imply that the Justice Department are denying anything bigger than this ever having happened to them. Yeah, right!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
EasyTarget, plz don't feed the trolls. He's provably ignorant of the facts and background of the case and he doesn't really have any excuse for it in this day and age. Just let him rant quietly in a corner about this one
I'm not sure about the Daily Fail though, they seem to be supporting the decision. Who whudda thunk it? Oh, wait, they're waving the Jingoist Patriotism flag over this one, not the Balance of Justice flag. Shame, so close...
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, a hacker should be tried in the country WHERE THEY ACTUALLY DID THE HACKING. That's pretty basic. I certainly wouldn't expect the FBI to put a U.S. hacker on a plane to the UK for hacking some server there. The crime was committed at a terminal in the UK, and that is where it should be tried.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, a hacker should be tried in the country WHERE THEY ACTUALLY DID THE HACKING.
To play both Devil's Advocate and Captain Pedantic for a moment, you're talking about "where the accused was physically located," which is not the same as "where the crime is said to have occured" - especially once you get lawyers involved.
If I shoot someone from across a border, where was the crime committed?
Re: (Score:2)
If I shoot someone from across a border, where was the crime committed?
Where the person pulled the trigger and actually committed the crime, unless you think getting shot is a crime too.
Re: (Score:2)
unless you think getting shot is a crime too.
I don't think the crime as committed by the criminal and the crime as suffered by the victim are quite so inseparable. What if the criminal stabs their victim with a long stick over the border? Or sends a robot over to do the dirty work? Or sets a bomb on a timer while they're in country A, goes back to country B and chooses not to remotely disarm it once they're there? Ridiculous examples, of course, but I do think it's too simplistic to declare that wherever someone happens to physically be is where the c
Re:A pity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There is something called an insanity defense you know.
Also I seriously doubt prison capacity is a valid argument for anything relating to justice.
I doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
Blair would have handed over the UK to the US lock, stock and barrel in exchange for a word from Bush iii (and some lucrative "consultancy" from a US bank). And the others...while there are libel laws in the UK I can't trust myself to write about Campbell or Mandelson.
Be carted off the the US without the US court having to show even prima facie evidence? There was a time and a place where foreign nationals could be extradited like that, but the time was prior to 1990 and the place was the satellite states of the Soviet Union.
Re: (Score:3)
"I very much doubt you are a UK citizen."
Doubt away all you like pal. Not everyone in the UK is a bed wetting lefty sobbing over a Guardian editorial about criminals human rights.
Yes, the well known left wing media like the Daily Mail were all for his extradition [dailymail.co.uk], and the BNP [blogspot.co.uk] are known to be quite cuddly too.
</sarcasm>
Re:I doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubt away all you like pal. Not everyone in the UK is a bed wetting lefty sobbing over a Guardian editorial about criminals human rights.
Sigh.
I really, truly hope you are not a UK citizen.
Firstly, your comment about "snivelling" whatever, makes me sure that you are one of those who is capable of thinking about issues only interms of a team cheering us-versus them party political context, rather than trying to think and come to your own, reasoned, conclusion.
People voting along your lines are basically what is wrong with democracy. Please, refrain from voting. You are personally respondible for making democracy the worst system (except all others).
Frankly it's insane that you think that basic legal rights are a left-versus-right thing not a right versus wrong thing.
You also seem to think that putting "criminal" in front of something automatically has some bearing. And if you think criminals shouldn't have rights, then why not have the death penalty for almost every crime? After all, who cares about criminal rights?
The measure of a civilisation is not how it treates its conformists but how it treats its dissidents. (quote from someone famous...)
I'd be willing to bet that you hate the European convention on human rights too.
Re:I doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A pity (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd agree if the idea he should be extradited to face the possible penalties he could face in America were in any way sane.
When the Americans were putting forward such absurdly inflated figures for damage and recommending such absurd levels of punishment, then I don't really blame him for the excuse he used.
It seems the only way to get sanity in the case was for them to bring their own extreme scenario into the equation, the Aspergers excuse did after all only enter the discussion after some years of them trying to just be reasonable and rational about things.
So honestly, if you think it's silly that people can use this excuse to avoid extradition then fine, but if you think he also deserved to face extradition and upto 60 years in prison for what frankly, was little more than a bit of vandalism and arguably not even really that, then I think you need to get a bit of a grip on reality.
Honestly, what he did was arguably more harmless than even getting a speeding ticket, at least speeding tickets are there to try and deter anyone driving in such a way they cause physical harm to someone else. All Gary's actions did was cause a bit of embarassment and result in a bit of their IT staff's time be spent sorting out the security issues they should've sorted out as part of their day to day employment so he couldn't have logged in to their systems using a blank password anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get out of prison for anything if your judge is in a good enough mood and you have a inventive lawer.
For example, getting off of the murder charge because you are a woman (http://www.abc.net.au/health/features/stories/2005/12/08/1836110.htm#d).
Re: (Score:2)
For example, getting off of the murder charge because you are a woman
No, getting off on a murder change because you have a massive hormonal imbalance which causes you to become uncontrollaby violent.
1981: Twenty-nine-year-old barmaid Sandie Craddock got off a murder charge after stabbing another worker to death when she pleaded diminished responsibility because of PMS. The judge accepted the argument that PMS was a mitigating factor in the incident because it turned Craddock "into a raging animal each month". A review of Craddock's diaries showed that each of her past 30 convictions and multiple suicide attempts occurred around the same time of her menstrual cycle. Craddock was found guilty of manslaughter, placed on probation and ordered to take progesterone treatment.
Not saying the judge was right or wrong, but out of the three of us (you, me, and him) I'd say he's the one who's more carefully considered all the evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but massive hormonal imbalances are par for the course for being a woman.
Re:A pity (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who has lived with a person suffering from a debilitating mental health issue I hope I'm not the first to say, "fuck you". Your opinion displays a lack of compassion for someone who was being disproportionately hounded by those who wanted to hide their own ineptitude by making him an example.
Mr. McKinnon was formally diagnosed. Your perception that he's some pretender looking for an escape is grossly judgemental. He and his representatives have repeatedly asked for a trial on UK soil.
I hope someone more objective and compassionate than you stands up for your rights if they're ever in peril.
I don't have karma to burn, I don't need a shield to be a decent human being.
Re: (Score:3)
For such a debilitating condition, he'd managed to live for 35 or so years wi
Re: (Score:3)
Aspergers can go a very long time without diagnosis, and I don't think that this was a "diagnosis of convenience". The three doctors are all highly rated professionals and it's unlikely they'd all stake their professional reputations and risk being struck off the medical register or prosecuted for giving false evidence just for one guy, however David-vs-Goliath this case is.
However, it is quite depressing that it's become such a lynch-pin in this case when the real issue is how the hell we got into this pos
Re: (Score:2)
I very much doubt the damages were 800 000.
Re:A pity (Score:4, Insightful)
His defence wasn't "I have aspergers syndrome", it was "sorry, I cracked your system, looked around, did no damage, and then told you about it... I didn't realise it was a big deal because of aspergers."
Frankly, his crime is akin to someone picking your locker door, and then going "look, you shouldn't store your wallet in here when you're swimming, it's not very secure". Sure, it's not a good thing to do, and sure it should get a slap on the wrist... But to turn this into the life imprisonment crime the US are making it out to be, and to extradite over it, is retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a UK citizen
By birth? Or did you move here? Not a great advert for our education system if you were raised in it.
HIs defence played the old suicide card
As pointed out by many that argument was used against extradition. I can't see it having much sway as a defense in the criminal case that will follow.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a UK citizen and I have little sympathy for him. HIs defence played the old suicide card with a side serving of poor-little-me aspergers sufferer. As if that somehow makes him innocent of his crimes. If thats alls that needed to get someone off going to prison then most prisons would be empty.
This sends a very bad message. And yes, I know I'll get modded down for this by all the self righteous teen keyboard warriors but I have karma to burn to knock yourselves out.
Why is a Brit extradited to the US anyway, for a possible crime committed in the UK? If I did something stupid in Norway, I'd expected to be tried here with Norwegian laws, judges and sentences. I'm pretty sure the US does not extradite it's own citizens for crimes done in the US...
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly a little lopsided. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17553860/ [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
The entire argument is, and always has been that he should be tried in the UK.
From the article:
The home secretary told MPs there was no doubt Mr McKinnon was "seriously ill" and the extradition warrant against him should be withdrawn.
Mrs May said the sole issue she had to consider was his human rights.
She said it was now for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, to decide whether he should face trial in the UK.
Mrs May said: "After careful consideration of all of the relevant material I have concluded that Mr McKinnon's extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon's human rights. I have therefore withdrawn the extradition order against Mr McKinnon."
That sounds to me like the extradition has been completely rejected whether or not he is tried in the UK for his alleged activities.
Re:A pity (Score:5, Interesting)
Mrs May said the sole issue she had to consider was his human rights.
Have you been actually following the topic for the last 10 years?
I have.
Repeatedly the argument has been that if he is to face trial it should be in the UK.
Remember, though that legal cases are not argued by finding one good solid point like a debate, they are argued by covering everything to see what sticks. The fact that the current home secretary decided to latch on to one partiaspect of it does not detract to what has been the point for the last 10 years.
The McKinnon family has made no attempt to prevent him from standing trial.
They have only attempted to block his extradition.
Randomly quoting bits from a politician who has been in a position of power for only a tiny fraction of the case is completely irrelevent.
Re: (Score:2)
Theresa May only had a certain frame of reference for blocking the extradition - that he should be tried in the UK is not one, and indeed two people have been extradited to the US in the last two weeks for websites created and run in the UK.
One way to block the extradition was on the grounds of illness, again, in the last two weeks one person has been extradited to the US even though he had medical certificates saying that he was a suicide risk.
Of course, the difference is that they were nutty muslim terror
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, the difference is that they were nutty muslim terrorists with hooks and eye patches,and not white middle class aspareger syndromes sufferers.
Quite right. The extradition treaty was for dealing with terrorists. McKinnon is not a terrorist.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, we're quite sure he did it. That we know, he told us. But the charges he would be looking at in the States are up to 70 years, and we're not legally allowed to extradite anyone to a country where they may face "cruel or unusual punishment". 70 years for a minor, damage-less hack of a totally insecure system? Hmm, let me think...
Re: (Score:3)
Hey I just hacked you, and I may be crazy, but I was looking for ET, so don't extradite me...
Sorry, our alien overlords insist
Re: (Score:3)
It should be Gary McKinnon. The /. headline is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Scottish and am forever thinking while dealing with a name "Oh fuck, should that be Mc or Mac?"
To be honest it's only people with a Mc or Mac surname that get really irate about it being wrong. But then I might have a more relaxed attitude about it because I am subjected to my forename (Iain) being misspelled on an almost daily basis.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, your straw man won't stand up for a microsecond. If Muslim terrorists in the UK managed to lob a missile to the US, they could be tried in this country and the question of extradition to a country with a backward judicial system would not arise. Even with Abu Hamza, the real issue is whether the US has got a case or not. The suspicion is that, just like the invasion of Iraq, they are just thrashing around trying to find someone they can punish for something
Re: (Score:2)