Common sense judicial decision for once

[RandBlade]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19968973

Been following this case off-and-on when it comes to the news for years. A mentally-ill Briton with a severe case of autism, Gary McKinnon, years ago hacked into US military sites looking for evidence of UFO's. I know some people with Ausperger's Syndrome, of various severities, and they can be incredibly gifted but obsessed.

I don't think anyone can really say Gary McKinnon was wishing harm on anyone in his hunt for UFO's and rather than prosecute him for what he did the US military should be glad that it was a mentally ill "UFO nut" and not a terrorist who exposed the weakness in their system.

60 years in prison would not have been the right action here. The US and UK are not the same nation and I'm glad for once in this instance that extradition was blocked. As for the terrorists family complaining as to why should a terrorist in similar circumstances get extradited ... the similarities are superficial. The terrorists did try and cause harm and good riddance to them. Had McKinnon done what he did as an act of terrorism and not as part of an obsessive hunt for extraterrestial life then I'd think he should be extradited too.

[Loki]

A) He does not have a severe form of autism, unless your definition of severe is "better than average". Regardless, it's for our courts to decide whether he's fit to stand trial, not yours.
B) Intention matters very little when it comes to conviction for most crimes. Intention generally matters when it comes to sentencing. You're also assuming that just because 60 years is the maximum penalty that the guy would receive 60 years. This is almost never the case.
C) We have an extradition treaty that clearly covers this case. Unilaterally deciding to not follow this treaty shows a remarkable amount of bad faith.
D) When combined with Britain's opting out from 100 European criminal justice treaties, it's pretty obvious that this is being done to please the xenophobic, nationalist part of the Tory base. I suppose it might help the Tories get some of the BNP and UKIP vote as well.

[RandBlade]

A) No that's wrong. He's our citizen not yours living in our nation not yours. Therefore its up to our system to decide whether to extradite him, not yours. Once he's on your soil, then its upto your system but until then its not.
B) This is about extradition, not convictions.
C) We have an extradition treaty put in place for terrorism cases, not for this. Either way though the US reserves the right not to send its citizens on certain grounds if it decides to, so why is it bad faith for the UK to exercise those same rights? Unless you're claiming the UK issueing a warrant for an American citizen would automatically get honoured with no recourse (that's not true if you are).
D) Off topic and BS. On the topic of Europe the UK had to exercise its opt-out (which it didn't get due to eurosceptic grounds which is why Ireland also got one) and its worthy of its own thread if you want to discuss.

[Loki]

A) He's a fully functioning adult. Asperger's is not an extreme case of autism. In fact, it's a mild form of autism: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/he...pagewanted=all The main problem faced by people with Asperger's is social interaction; it does not keep from telling the difference between right and wrong, and it does not lead to being conspiracy nuts.
B) Extradition is based on the underlying crime. The underlying crime does not require intention. Bringing it up is a xenophobic bogeyman.
C) He compromised US security and illegally gained access to secret US material. If he were a Muslim, I guarantee there would be no outrage from the Tories over the extradition.
D) Yeah, it's just a coincidence that this is happening at the same time, just as Cameron is trying to solidify his position in the Conservative party.

[RandBlade]

A) There are varying degrees of Asperger's, they are not all uniform. In fact if you read that article it actually says the opposite of what you are trying to imply. The link says that it is a misleading term that medical practicioners want to remove as it doesn't properly deal with it as a "continuum with varying degrees of severity". Exactly what I said in the OP so thanks for not reading the link that proves my point.
B) Extradition is based on a number of underlying conditions including the health of the suspect.
C) He did so to hunt for UFO's, not cause the death of anyone. You're right that if he was trying to cause deaths (not look for little green men) then I'd be less sympathetic, but don't bring racism into it. The US sheltered a number of white Irish terrorists from the UK.
D) Yes it is, these are long-running issues that needed conclusions. The other one was inevitable as I said I'm happy to discuss.

[Ominous Gamer]

A) He's a fully functioning adult. Asperger's is not an extreme case of autism. In fact, it's a mild form of autism: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/he...pagewanted=all The main problem faced by people with Asperger's is social interaction; it does not keep from telling the difference between right and wrong, and it does not lead to being conspiracy nuts.

A main symptom of Aspergers is that they can zero in, or over-focus, on certain subjects and actions. This obsession is more than enough to cloud their judgement of where right and wrong belong.

Glad to see the UK sticking up for their less than normal citizens.

[Hazir]

I find the title over this topic very disturbing; it shows a cynicism over society that is very destructive. There is no reason to assume that British judges get it right only once in a time and as a rule hand down batfuck crazy rulings.

Also; when did Theresa May become a judge? I thought she was a cabinet minister?

[Aimless]

Exciting, extradition barred due to serious depression and risk of suicide! This will perhaps have interesting consequences

[RandBlade]

Also; when did Theresa May become a judge? I thought she was a cabinet minister?

She's Home Secretary, its long been a British tradition that the Home Secretary makes some contentious final decisions in judicial cases, though as it happens I believe she's changing the law so that in future it'd be judges making the decision but for now its her responsibility.

The Home Secretary used to I believe get the final say in whether murderers on life terms (aka "Her Majesty's Pleasure") could be released or not.

[Dreadnaught]

I'd be curious to hear more about just how mentally ill he supposedly is.

Funnily enough the terrorist-enablers are pissed:

The family of terror suspect Babar Ahmad said while they welcomed the decision not to extradite Mr McKinnon, questions had to be asked.

Mr Ahmad was one of five terror suspects, including radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, extradited to the US earlier this month. His co-accused, Talha Ahsan, who was also extradited, was diagnosed with Asperger's in June 2009, according to a European Court of Human Rights judgement.

Mr Ahmad's family said: "Why within the space of two weeks, a British citizen with Asperger's accused of computer-related activity is not extradited, while two other British citizens, one with Asperger's, engaged in computer-related activity are extradited. A clear demonstration of double standards."

[Loki]

As I mentioned: Muslim does x, gets extradited; non-Muslim does x, national outrage and no extradition.

Exciting, extradition barred due to serious depression and risk of suicide! This will perhaps have interesting consequences

If you think that was the real reason for what happened, I have a bridge to sell you. There is no legal reason for the refusal to extradite (change of treaty only applies to future cases). This is a blatant attempt to appeal to British xenophobes (who don't seem to mind when Muslims get extradited).

[RandBlade]

As I mentioned: Muslim does x, gets extradited; non-Muslim does x, national outrage and no extradition.

As I mentioned: That is 100% completely wrong.

Muslim sets up computer website to facilitate, aid and abet murder and terrorism. Gets extradited.
Non-Muslim hacks into insecure computer system to hunt for little green men, that he is obsessed with due to his mental health. Doesn't get extradited.

For you to resort to this immature name-calling is facetious and not worthy of you.

If you think that was the real reason for what happened, I have a bridge to sell you. There is no legal reason for the refusal to extradite (change of treaty only applies to future cases). This is a blatant attempt to appeal to British xenophobes (who don't seem to mind when Muslims get extradited).

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to refuse to extradite (no change to treaties needed), his health being one of them and that was the issue named here.

Believing that someone who is ill and commited a victimless crime that embarrassed another nation but neither was intended nor did cause harm should not be extradited is not xenophobia.

Rather than prosecute Gary McKinnon the US should have hired him to help identify and fix the holes in their insecure systems so that next time when a terrorist intent on death and destruction tries to hack in they can't so easily. "Their but for the grace of God" it could have been a terrorist (Muslim or not, think the Unabomber wasn't Muslim) rather than someone looking for UFO's.

[Loki]

You can tell America what it should do as much as you want; the reality is that American law was broken and you're obligated by treaty to hand the criminal over. If America wants to pardon him, that's America's choice, not yours. Talking about "victimless" crimes is even stupider; treason is usually a victimless crime (assuming the person gets caught early enough); that's hardly a reason to not punish it. No one is actually claiming that no crime was committed or that the act in question wouldn't be a crime in Britain. So what we have is your Home Secretary unilaterally abrogating your legal obligations to appeal to a domestic audience. The potential for self-harm has not and is not a valid reason to stop an extradition hearing. Hell, how many of your Muslim extremists threaten to kill themselves if sent to the US? But we know that "criminal while Muslim" is the next "driving while black".

[RandBlade]

A) You are again confusing a US Citizen on US Soil to a UK Citizen on UK Soil. We have a judicial process before sending him over (same as you do in reverse). You can't just click your fingers or whistle and that's it.
B) "Assuming the victim gets caught early enough" - that's silly, the law is deliberately that attempting a crime is as serious as succeeding in it. Intent matters. Attempted murder is still prosecuted even if caught. McKinnon wasn't caught early enough yet it was still victimless.
C) No, what we have is a complicated case and the Home Secretary is using her discretion she has by British law to determine that it is not appropriate on medical grounds to send him over.
D) Again with the racist slandering without anything to back it up. I've dealt with enough of your lies in this thread which you then ignore the response of, falsely equating two issues where the similarities are barely there. The crimes, the situations, the individuals ... none of it is similar in the slightest.

I seem to recall you being horrified when the convicted mass-murdering terrorist the Lockerbie bomber was released from prison on compassionate medical grounds. Was that racism against Muslims too

[Steely Glint]

While I'm happy the Americans plan to throw this guy in a hole for 60 years for hacking into their precccccious computers has been thwarted, I do agree with Loki about the comparison with this case and that of Barbar Ahmed and The Other Guy Who Was Not Abu Hamza. The Labour shadow justice minister made a good point when he pointed out that the Home Secretary had basically thrown Ahmed to the dogs and then, two weeks later, gone "hmm, maybe there should be some kind of discretion about where the case should be tried" when we were about to extradite a harmless guy with autism to the tender mercies of the US justice system when it was also the very crux of the Ahmed case.

[RandBlade]

Harmless guy with autism != murderous terrorist.

The two were totally different. There is no point in having any discretion or judicial processes if differences can't be treated in a reasonable manner. While precedent is very important and must be treated as such so too is being reasonable and the two combined are the whole basis of UK common law and why the UK has a totally different legal system to the Napoleonic continental civil law system. The difference between common and civil law (not euroscepticism) is the reason we had an opt-out from the EU thing too, Ireland as another common law nation got one too.

[Steely Glint]

You can't just selectively apply the law to people you don't like, Randblade. If you have to resort to basically winging it to get a just outcome then it's time to take a closer look at the law.

ALSO

Barbar Ahmed is not a murderous terrorist. He's an accused murderous terrorist. He's also a British citizen, and to me, that still means something and I'm not very happy about him being shipped off to the US to get the Bradley Manning treatment, or whatever the fuck they want to do to him. His case could and should have been tried in the UK, just like Gary McKinnon.

[RandBlade]

The whole judicial system is based on what people are accused of doing. Babar Ahmed is accused of terrorism, Gary McKinnon is accused of looking for aliens.

The only similarity is that the US wanted to extradite both.

[Loki]

Harmless guy with autism != murderous terrorist.

The two were totally different.

I agree. Ahmed committed a crime while Muslim, and McKinnon did not.

Incidentally, Ahmed isn't accused of terrorism; he's accused of giving money to terrorists. Either way, how is this relevant? I thought the reason you thought it was a good idea to not extradite the non-Muslim was because he had Asperger's and was a threat to himself if extradited?

[Unheard Of]

You can tell America what it should do as much as you want; the reality is that American law was broken and you're obligated by treaty to hand the criminal over.

Yes, the extradition treaty is ridiculously asymmetric. It is both politically expedient and morally right to ignore it, with a view to scrapping the whole thing.

If America wants to pardon him, that's America's choice, not yours. Talking about "victimless" crimes is even stupider; treason is usually a victimless crime (assuming the person gets caught early enough); that's hardly a reason to not punish it. No one is actually claiming that no crime was committed or that the act in question wouldn't be a crime in Britain. So what we have is your Home Secretary unilaterally abrogating your legal obligations to appeal to a domestic audience. The potential for self-harm has not and is not a valid reason to stop an extradition hearing. Hell, how many of your Muslim extremists threaten to kill themselves if sent to the US? But we know that "criminal while Muslim" is the next "driving while black".

If he had any sense he'd label himself a penetration tester and bill the US government for his services. The real issue is that parts of the US government act like whiny little bitches when they are shown to be incompetent. McKinnon made them look bad, and that is unforgivable.

[Loki]

Yes, the extradition treaty is ridiculously asymmetric. It is both politically expedient and morally right to ignore it, with a view to scrapping the whole thing.

That's nice. You have the full right to renegotiate the treaty. You don't have the right to not follow it.

If he had any sense he'd label himself a penetration tester and bill the US government for his services. The real issue is that parts of the US government act like whiny little bitches when they are shown to be incompetent. McKinnon made them look bad, and that is unforgivable.

Yeah, because gaining access to top secret info without permission isn't against the law in the US. Or in Britain for that matter.

[Ominous Gamer]

You can't just selectively apply the law to people you don't like, Randblade.

We do it all the time.

[Hazir]

That's nice. You have the full right to renegotiate the treaty. You don't have the right to not follow it.

Yeah, because gaining access to top secret info without permission isn't against the law in the US. Or in Britain for that matter.

I doubt the treaty doesn't have some escape clauses like the one that got this hacker off the hook. I do agree with you by the way that it's remarkable how the muslim was thrown to the wolves, where the white Brit was deemed too frail for the American system of justice.

[Unheard Of]

That's nice. You have the full right to renegotiate the treaty. You don't have the right to not follow it.

Are you being deliberately naive, or are you actually this green?

Yeah, because gaining access to top secret info without permission isn't against the law in the US. Or in Britain for that matter.

Yes, he committed a crime in the UK. He should be tried here.

[RandBlade]

Incidentally, Ahmed isn't accused of terrorism; he's accused of giving money to terrorists. Either way, how is this relevant? I thought the reason you thought it was a good idea to not extradite the non-Muslim was because he had Asperger's and was a threat to himself if extradited?

No the reason I believe he shouldn't be extradited is that he didn't try and harm anyone and all he did was look for aliens, the whole thing is ridiculous!

The reason he looked for aliens is a direct result of his illness and that is why I have opposed this extradition for many years ... long before any claims of suicide risk or anything else came to light. The whole thing should never have seen the light of day in the first place.

[Hazir]

Are you being deliberately naive, or are you actually this green?

Yes, he committed a crime in the UK. He should be tried here.

Are you being deliberately naive, or are you actually this green?

For the crime to be proven in British court the US government would have to lay open information it would not want in the hands of any other government.

[Unheard Of]

For the crime to be proven in British court the US government would have to lay open information it would not want in the hands of any other government.

Clearly the US wouldn't want to release the secure data on those servers, the details of anti-gravity, free energy and UFOs would be too much for our little European brains to cope with

[RandBlade]

I just thought these discussions sounded a bit familiar so Googled it. It seems that Loki is nothing other than a slippery hypocrite in this. Apparently today its all racism from the UK against Muslims. Muslim, Muslim, Muslim, Muslim.

Apparently 2 years and 5 months ago it was nothing but anti-Americanism. America, America, America. Source

Interestingly my position then is about the same as it still is.

[Steely Glint]

Having read the Wikipedia article, I am now a forum-renowed expert on this case and would like to correct two misconceptions, one by each side.

1) McKinnon's activities were not "harmless", at least according to the pentagon - he deleted a bunch of system files and wrecked a couple of Pentagon networks in the process.
2) McKinnon's "serious illness" that prevented his extradition was not Aspergers, but clinical depression, or clinical depression compounded with Aspergers and a medical opinion that he would attempt suicide if extradited to the US.

And finally, his grand master plan to hack the Pentagon's computers? Writing a perl script to check for blank passwords. That's right, as late as 2001-2, the Pentagon - the actual Pentagon - had computers on it's networks using blank passwords.

[RandBlade]

And finally, his grand master plan to hack the Pentagon's computers? Writing a perl script to check for blank passwords. That's right, as late as 2001-2, the Pentagon - the actual Pentagon - had computers on it's networks using blank passwords.

The Pentagon deserved what it got and is bloody lucky that it wasn't someone else.