Gary Mckinnon's Extradition to the US on Hacking Charges

[Timbuk2]

Could one of you Brits kindly explain this to me?

As in, what the hell is the deal here, and why do you crazy people care about blocking his extradition?

In UK, Hacker Demands New Government Block Extradition

Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon has called on the newly elected British government to put its money where its mouth is and tear up his extradition order. US prosecutors have been trying to get McKinnon before a New Jersey court for seven years after they caught him hacking into US military and NASA computers looking for evidence of UFOs. David Cameron, the newly elected prime minister, and Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, had both voiced their support for McKinnon's campaign against extradition. Other ministers in the coalition government had branded the extradition unjust. Clegg had even joined McKinnon's mother, Janis Sharp, on a protest march."

Really, only in the UK could an admitted felon get popular support for not being tried, based on whackball UFO theories.

Meanwhile, yous guys convict people for making jokes on Twitter to their friends.

Anti-Americanism. There was also a scandal about some British businessmen getting extradited to the US for fraud, despite Brits calling for the heads of businessmen who committed fraud in Britain.

Well, there are many reasons against the extradition, some with more weight than others.

- He was tracked down in 2002 by the UK's National Hi-Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU) and arrested under the Computer Misuse Act. This Act carried a six-month sentence and was not an extraditable offence, despite Mckinnon being indicted by the US. He was free under UK law and at liberty subsequently. Nothing more to it, justice is served.

- In 2005 the UK brought in the controvertial Extradition Act 2003, which ... allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa[2]. ... and wherein the US did not need to provide contestable evidence
... The US and in particular the State of Virginia waited until this controvertial act was ratified before applying for Mckinnon's extradition. He had been free under UK law for three years by this time ...

- He suffers from Asperger's Syndrome. As stated by one Joseph Richard Gutheinz, Jr., a retired NASA Office of Inspector General Senior Special Agent, also an American criminal defense attorney and former Member of the Texas Criminal Justice Advisory Committee on Offenders with Medical and Mental Impairments; Gary McKinnon could not find justice if extradited to America from the UK, because of America’s poor track record in aggressively prosecuting offenders with mental impairments. Gutheinz was especially concerned that McKinnon's diagnosis of Asperger syndrome would not be dealt with sympathetically by the US criminal justice system. (Wiki).
Yes siree, we know how you 'murikans treat your mental cases.

- He faces up to 70 years in US maximum security prisons - 7 counts of Computer Hacking which carry up to 10 years each. In the UK the equivalent crime carries up to 5 years.

~

On 9 May 2010 The Times reported that the Conservative Party had pledged to halt the extradition, as they felt that the treaty, designed to catch terror suspects, was being misapplied.

Nick Clegg has taken part in support marches for Mckinnon the past.

So the two men most central to the UK's new government are entirely against this extradition.

[Loki]

So anyone with Asperger's should be free to undermine a country's national security and not have to pay for it? And why does it matter if the crime was technically committed in the UK when it was committed against the United States (and one can argue that it was committed in the US, as that's where the servers are located)?

Give me a freaking break. This would be a nonissue if it wasn't America asking for the extradition.

[CitizenCain]

Well, there are many reasons against the extradition, some with more weight than others.

- He was tracked down in 2002 by the UK's National Hi-Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU) and arrested under the Computer Misuse Act. This Act carried a six-month sentence and was not an extraditable offence, despite Mckinnon being indicted by the US. He was free under UK law and at liberty subsequently. Nothing more to it, justice is served.

This, and the other "the punishment is too harsh" arguments might hold any water at all if the UK agreed to compromise and try him over there, and punish him over there. For 6 months or 5 years, or whatever. But given that the UK clearly isn't willing to this, this argument seems pretty hollow to me.

Seriously, I also agree that 70 years is *way* too harsh for the offense he committed, but the British response seems to be "justice is served by doing nothing at all," which is equally ridiculous.

- He suffers from Asperger's Syndrome.

So do two of my [living] family members. (A lot more if you count the dead.) And?

It's a "high functioning" form of autism which primarily affects socialization skills (they don't have any, basically), but not much else [of consequence - heightened sensitivity to sound is another common symptom]. It's not an argument against serving a jail sentence in any way, except as a completely merit-less argument of last resort.

Based on what you've put forward as reasons, and unless I'm missing something (which is quite possible), it does certainly appear to me that the UK response to this case is based more on anti-Americanism than anything with any actual merit.

[Flixy]

So anyone with Asperger's should be free to undermine a country's national security and not have to pay for it? And why does it matter if the crime was technically committed in the UK when it was committed against the United States (and one can argue that it was committed in the US, as that's where the servers are located)?

Give me a freaking break. This would be a nonissue if it wasn't America asking for the extradition.

Actually, all those things matter for extradiction and not just to the USA. In fact, the USA has always been privileged by laws, as noted in the treaty: "and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa[2]. ... and wherein the US did not need to provide contestable evidence""
So quite whining about the american-hating - this treaty is unfairly balanced. And generally you cannot be extradited for offenses you commit in your own country, not matter who they were against. And you won't be extradited if they believe you won't get a fair trial by the standards of the extraditing country. So if mentally ill would be treated very differently in the US than in the UK, it's a good ground to not extradite him.

[CitizenCain]

And generally you cannot be extradited for offenses you commit in your own country, not matter who they were against.

So, if I hack MI6 and post all their top secret data on the interwebs for everyone to see... you're saying that the UK wouldn't have a case to extradite me? That's not really true.

For example... the Ukrainian computer criminal who helped hack US retailers (from the Ukraine), recently arrested in India, for extradition to the US.

Basically, if the UK really wants to open up the can of worms that says it's not going to extradite any computer criminals if it can possibly avoid it... well, I guess they can. But it will mean open season on UK servers for all US hackers, as well as practically anyone else who wants to bring up this case when the UK requests their extradition. Seems pretty dumb to me.

mentally ill

Again, stretching the definition of "mentally ill" to include Asperger's Syndrome is stretching it so far as to make the term completely useless.

[RandBlade]

The extradition shouldn't happen under the current act as the US senate never passed the extradition treaty.

The UK and the US made a treaty, under antiterrorism laws, whereby suspects could be extradited at a much lower threshold. The UK ratified the treaty and entered it into law. The US did not, the Senate did not accept the treaty as the idea of American citizens being extradited to Britain without going through US courts was rejected. Well if its no good for Americans, it should be no good for Brits either. Following the US's rejection of the treaty, the UK Parliament should have rescinded it.

It is absolutely absurd to agree a treaty and then have it become one way only and expect it to still be enforced.

Note that there are still other, older, extradition laws which could apply in this case and apply to Americans getting extradited to the UK. But they would require a far higher level of evidence, including the UK sending evidence to America that can be contested in American courts before the extradition happens.

[Loki]

You do realize that states are allowed to extradite criminals to states they do not have an extradition treaty with, right?

[RandBlade]

Yes.

You also realise that if the US first refuses to honour an agreement made, the UK is under no ethical obligation to too . . . and it would not be anti-American to do just as the US Senate voted to.

[Flixy]

You do realize that states are allowed to extradite criminals to states they do not have an extradition treaty with, right?

And that they tend not to do that when punishment over there is far harsher than it is over here? (70 years vs 6 months)

[Loki]

Yes.

You also realise that if the US first refuses to honour an agreement made, the UK is under no ethical obligation to too . . . and it would not be anti-American to do just as the US Senate voted to.

So just because the UK isn't absolutely forced to do something, it should refuse to extradite a criminal that undermined American national security? I suppose American intelligence services should stop cooperating with their British counterparts since they are under no formal obligation to do so.

And that they tend not to do that when punishment over there is far harsher than it is over here? (70 years vs 6 months)

A) Don't confuse maximum punishment with the likely punishment. American prosecutors have a strategy of charging criminals with every possible crime under the moon, knowing that they're not going to get convictions for all of them (and using that as a plea bargaining strategy).

B) That says as much about Britain being lax on criminals as it does about America being harsh on them. 6 months for this crime is ridiculous.

[RandBlade]

The US should feel free to send contestable evidence to the British courts and follow traditional extradition procedures.

You're right, 6 months in prison for someone with mental problems because he hacked into a government site to look for evidence for UFO's is indeed ridiculous.

There was no malice involved, what exactly do you think the sentance should be for it?

[Loki]

Sorry, but I'm not going to participate in this argument as long as you keep insisting that the criminal was mentally ill.

[RandBlade]

But the criminal was mentally ill.

It is a mental disease of varying levels of severity that can cause people to become almost obsessive and concentrate on particularly narrow subjects. EG UFO's. It also means that sufferers can not always tell the implications of what they are doing.

[Loki]

Please look up what Asperger's actually entails.

[EyeKhan]

He'll get a fair trial. I don't see the problem.

[RandBlade]

Aspergers is a wide-ranging disease that can have differing levels of severity, from being quite mild to very severe.

Without knowing the details of Mc Mckinnon's infliction, the two issues I raised are both symptoms of Asperger's.

[Loki]

Because we know that every UFO nut is mentally ill.

[Unheard Of]

I'm probably being thick, but I don't see why a British citizen who committed a crime on British soil should be extradited. He's our problem, let us deal with him.

But the criminal was mentally ill.

I've worked with a couple of people diagnosed with asperger's syndrome and a few more who were definitely within the autistic spectrum. I don't think you can automatically consider anyone in the spectrum to be mentally ill.

It's secondary to the extradition issue, but based on the description of how he got access to the computers, the agencies affected should be ashamed of their laxity. I sometimes wish I had the option of harassing people who make me look incompetent through the courts

[CitizenCain]

The US should feel free to send contestable evidence to the British courts and follow traditional extradition procedures.

Except (as I understand it), the UK's already agreed to extradite him on this treaty thing. So, given that, what logic is there in sending over evidence for a traditional extradition hearing?

There was no malice involved

Which is a mitigating factor at sentencing, not a reason to prevent him from seeing trial.

Need I remind you of your hard-on for crucifying drunk drivers, who also don't have any malice (and much more often than not, don't even actually cause any harm).

A) Don't confuse maximum punishment with the likely punishment. American prosecutors have a strategy of charging criminals with every possible crime under the moon, knowing that they're not going to get convictions for all of them (and using that as a plea bargaining strategy).

No, the incredibly broken state of the American federal criminal system is a valid objection to extraditing the guy. Of course, they'd have to do so consistently, and as far as I can tell, the UK doesn't actually have a problem with our draconian [federal] criminal justice system until it's politically convenient.

Aspergers is a wide-ranging disease that can have differing levels of severity, from being quite mild to very severe.

Without knowing the details of Mc Mckinnon's infliction, the two issues I raised are both symptoms of Asperger's.

FFS, Rand, it doesn't even qualify as a "mentally illness" (for the purposes of determining competency to stand trial) on your side of the pond, so stop making the blatantly disingenuous argument that it somehow should over here, or in this specific case, or whatever.

Like Loki said, actually look up the symptoms of Asperger's. Even in its severe manifestations, it doesn't cause [legally] compulsive/obsessive behavior, breaks from reality/delusions or the inability to differentiate right and wrong. If you're trying to say that this guy should get off the hook because of his Asperger's, then my ethics and personality are a valid defense to me beating ][ear into a coma. "It's not my fault, my compulsive hatred of hypocrisy made me do it."

Puuuuh-lease.

I'm probably being thick, but I don't see why a British citizen who committed a crime on British soil should be extradited.

Because the crime was committed against property on US soil (the US-based servers and such).

Generally speaking, when it comes to international computer crimes (and civil cases too), jurisdiction is granted to the country where the damage was done, and not where the attack/infringement/etc. originated. (Because it's doing the "damage" that's a criminal act, so the injured party is the country that was "damaged," not the country from which the "attack" occurred.)

He's our problem, let us deal with him.

See, I don't actually have a problem with this... if I thought that's what would actually happen... but as it's 8 years later, it seems pretty clear that Britain "handling it" amounts to doing nothing.

[Loki]

So are all the Brits going to take the position that just because Britain isn't legally obligated to extradite, Britain shouldn't do it?

[CitizenCain]

I'd like to see that.

It's been quite a while since there's been open season for computer crimes against a country which actually has any computers worth breaking into.

[Flixy]

So just because the UK isn't absolutely forced to do something, it should refuse to extradite a criminal that undermined American national security? I suppose American intelligence services should stop cooperating with their British counterparts since they are under no formal obligation to do so.

It shouldn't refuse to do so because it isn't forced to, no. But you expect them to extradite any citizen the US says did something wrong, without having to provide evidence first, while they won't do the same the other way around? Cooperating is the right word there, it has to come both ways. Or would you expect British intelligence services to give all their information to the US, without getting anything in return? Why should Britain extradite its citizens if Americans won't do the same in the same circumstances? That's a bit hypocritical.

[Loki]

Britain has plenty of evidence that the guy did something wrong.

[EyeKhan]

The guy's going to get a fair trial even if he has Assburgers. It's not like you're sending him to China ffs!

[Flixy]

So? If under the same circumstances the US would not extradite their citizens, which they apparently don't, then the UK shouldn't either.

[']['ear]

@ RB: Agreed that the US has a lousy record with the mentally ill. Also agreed that Asperger's is a form of mental illness. However, the rationale of "not guilty by reason of insanity" is that the defendant cannot tell right from wrong because of the mental illness. This is highly unlikely to be the case for a guy with Asperger's. And so any consequences of his mental illness should come out in sentencing, and should not impact guilt.

However, this seems like a misapplication of extradition. If the guy had actually performed a terrorist act, or contributed t such, then yes, extradite him. But UFOs? What is the US just trying to make a point? I really don't see the value of further punishment on something so trivial? Hell, they should pay him a bonus for revealing a security hole.

[Loki]

Erm, the point is that the guy revealed top-secret information...He thought it was about UFOs; it wasn't...

[EyeKhan]

So? If under the same circumstances the US would not extradite their citizens, which they apparently don't, then the UK shouldn't either.

So what you do is determined by what we do? Is that why you guys helped us invade Iraq???

[Flixy]

So what you do is determined by what we do? Is that why you guys helped us invade Iraq???

You expect people to give you whatever you want if you refuse to give anything in return? What on earth does that have to do with Iraq?

The UK doesn't have to extradite its citizens to another country (in fact, plenty of countries refuse to do so in general), they have sovereignty over the people within their borders. If they do, it is a favour to your government, and it's usually based on reciprocal treaties. So you really think it's weird that countries expect the same treatment you expect from them? That's rather arrogant. And I can see why the British are not supportive for the use of a treaty (signed after the crime), which is not ratified by your country, is unbalanced and favours the USA, and which was intended for terrorists, not hacking, and could face a far higher maximum penalty there. Especially since the UK can probably claim jurisdiction and try him themselves.

[Loki]

You expect people to give you whatever you want if you refuse to give anything in return? What on earth does that have to do with Iraq?

The UK doesn't have to extradite its citizens to another country (in fact, plenty of countries refuse to do so in general), they have sovereignty over the people within their borders. If they do, it is a favour to your government, and it's usually based on reciprocal treaties. So you really think it's weird that countries expect the same treatment you expect from them? That's rather arrogant. And I can see why the British are not supportive for the use of a treaty (signed after the crime), which is not ratified by your country, is unbalanced and favours the USA, and which was intended for terrorists, not hacking, and could face a far higher maximum penalty there. Especially since the UK can probably claim jurisdiction and try him themselves.

And yet it doesn't...