Forum Moderators: open
British hacker Gary McKinnon has lost his latest High Court bid to avoid extradition to the United States.The US wants to try the 43-year-old, from Wood Green, north London, for what it calls the biggest military computer hack of all time, in 2001 and 2002.
Whether or not he can appeal to the UK Supreme Court will be decided at a later date, Lord Justice Burnton said.
He said it was a matter which should be dealt with "as expeditiously as possible".
Earlier threads
Hacker 'confesses' to avoid extradition from UK [webmasterworld.com]
From 2008 NASA hacker to make House of Lords appeal on Monday [webmasterworld.com]
They'd be better off offering him a job.
I just wonder what would have happened if it had been an American who did this to a UK government website. Would the US agree to extradition?
If yes, the US Military and Government is going to look seriously stupid.
If not, then that should itself be grounds for a further appeal.
Back in the 70s and 80s, US courts refused to extradite IRA terrorists citing all sort of feeble excuses, so all things considered, I can see no possible justification for this extradition. If extradition does ever take place, that will be a very dark day for British justice and independence.
Kaled.
Judges decision ( which anyone can see is "influenced" ) is disgusting and I agree totally with kaled ..the UK judiciary has lost it's independence from the "executive" ..in it's own country ..which has in turn lost it's independence from the "executives" of other governments outside the UK ..
( and I dont include the EU in that statement )
Eventually ( ironically ) it will probably be down to the EU courts to protect this British citizen from his own courts decision to roll over ..
I just wonder what would have happened if it had been an American who did this to a UK government website. Would the US agree to extradition?
Nope. There is no extradition treaty allowing the UK to extradite US citizens.
The bilateral treaty was ratified by Parliament, but not the US legislature. For some reason that escapes me, the treaty became binding on one party, without being ratified by the other.
The bilateral treaty was ratified by Parliament, but not the US legislature.
It seems to me that behind-the-scenes pressure has been applied and it's an absolute disgrace. There isn't another country in the world that would cave in like this. What Gary McKinnon needs right now is Joanna Lumley on his side.
Kaled.
I am really angry at the UK government for allowing this to happen. The guy clearly has problems.
What should the remedy be? Smack him on the nose with a newspaper and say "Bad hacker; bad, bad hacker"?
I'd rather see him given a job to help prevent stuff like this from happening again, because really, I think the truly criminal thing here is those computer networks were in such a vulnerable state as to even be accessible remotely.
But he still apparently broke the law. He needs to be treated like anyone else in that regard.Absolutely right, however...
If I went out and decided to mug someone in London and that someone turned out to be American, I would still be tried in a UK court, I would not be extradited to the US to face trial.
The offense was committed in the UK. It makes no difference that the victim was American. Its also worth pointing out that the US Government and/or Justice Dept has blatantly lied in UK courts (i.e. committed perjury) in respect of the cost of damage done. Who should we put on trial for that?
And consider this, China is continually trying to steel military secrets but the US Govt is still cosying up with them, despite an appalling human rights record.
Gary McKinnon probably did the US Govt. a huge favour by exposing security weaknesses. If a crime was committed in the US, it was one of criminal negligence by the various individuals and organisations responsible for keeping the nation's secrets.
Kaled.
Your point about their lies in the UK courts is also valid. There is no way of quantifying what this cost. McKinnon did them a favour by demonstrating how inept they were. What if the Chinese or the Taliban had got there first?
Gary McKinnon probably did the US Govt. a huge favour by exposing security weaknesses
If I went out and decided to mug someone in London and that someone turned out to be American, I would still be tried in a UK court, I would not be extradited to the US to face trial.
In this age of world-wide computer networks I'm not sure we can hang onto old-fashioned notions of where crimes were committed. To my mind, if you're in the UK, and you commit a crime against property in the US, you should, at a minimum, be tried in the US.
And consider this, China is continually trying to steel military secrets but the US Govt is still cosying up with them, despite an appalling human rights record.
To my mind, if you're in the UK, and you commit a crime against property in the US, you should, at a minimum, be tried in the US.
Also, if being tried in the US is the "minimum" you would expect, just exactly what is your idea of the "maximum" that should happen?
For the purposes of this case I don't see how we deal with China is of any relevance.
Kaled.
Also, if being tried in the US is the "minimum" you would expect, just exactly what is your idea of the "maximum" that should happen?
The US Govt has hinted many times that the Chinese Govt employs large numbers of hackers to break into their computers. I think that makes China relevant.
Things have now gone so far down the road that saving face is the only real motivation for pursuing this poor unfortunate guy.
Though he did Wrong, the amount or valuation of the damage is (IMO) vastly overstated purely to achieve the Seriousness required for each charge to qualify for extradition under the terms of the treaty.
I agree with you that the China issue is a legitimate concern. It's just not relevant to this case.
Whoever is prosecuting this guy with such vigour is only exacerbating the potential embarrassment for the US military when and if this ever results in a trial. It is a knee-jerk reaction to cover up their own gross incompetence.
then extradition to the UK for a trial on whatever UK laws were broken
Even in cases where the victim of a crime is from one state and the crime was committed in another state, the trial, etc. will take place in the state where the crime was committed - that's was jurisdiction is all about. In this case, the crime was committed in the UK, but the victim was American.
If Gary McKinnon is extradited, how many American boiler-room-scammers do you think are likely to be extradited to the UK in return? Some have conned millions in total out of UK citizens whilst operating entirely from the US. Though not recently, I've even received scam phone-calls myself.
Come to that, the sale by US banks of worthless derivative loan bundles to banks around the world could be considered the biggest fraud in history. How many bankers are going to be extradited by the US to other countries for that?
And let's not forget Madoff. US regulators failed spectacularly. Perhaps the UK should demand their extradition on charges of criminal negligence. At least one British man (a retired soldier) committed suicide as a result of losing everything to Madoff.
Kaled.
So, if a UK citizen is mugged in the US, the perpetrator should be tried and serve their sentence in the US, then extradited to be tried and serve another sentence in the UK.
Even in cases where the victim of a crime is from one state and the crime was committed in another state, the trial, etc. will take place in the state where the crime was committed
If Gary McKinnon is extradited, how many American boiler-room-scammers do you think are likely to be extradited to the UK in return?
Come to that, the sale by US banks of worthless derivative loan bundles to banks around the world could be considered the biggest fraud in history.
And let's not forget Madoff. US regulators failed spectacularly. Perhaps the UK should demand their extradition on charges of criminal negligence.
In this current case a UK citizen is alleged to have used computer networks in his country to gain illegal access to computer networks in another country. Both acts are illegal according to the laws of the countries in which said acts were allegedly perpetrated. Therefore, in my opinion, a trial in both countries is warranted.
@lawman
Other than what I read in this thread, I don't know anything about the case. Has McKinnon been prosecuted in the UK?
Using your Barclays example, I would expect a trial in the US for violating US laws, sentencing and service of said sentence upon conviction, then extradition to the UK for a trial on whatever UK laws were broken.emphasis added.
GaryK then said
In this example, has any crime been committed in the UK? I don't think so.emphasis added.
In order to make your argument you have blatantly moved the goalposts from UK laws being broken to crimes being committed in the UK. Make up your mind!
Also, the boiler-room scam is an absolutely perfect comparative example. The crime is committed entirely on US soil (they don't set foot in the UK) and the victims are in the UK.
Kaled.
So far they have refused to prosecute the case on the grounds the only crime committed was in the US.
If the US won't provide the evidence, a prosecution in the UK is impossible. The most serious charge he could face would probably be misuse of telecommunications, for which he could expect maybe a £500 fine.
Kaled.
In this case, the crime was committed in the UK, but the victim was American.
Sorry... the crime was committed in the US on US property, originating from computers in the UK.
For those in the UK, who are unhappy with the extradition treaty with the US, vote in the necessary guys to UK government to challenge/modify that treaty.
Do I think the damages are a bit overstated? I do... but that's what the trial would reveal and that's why a trial should proceed.
In order to make your argument you have blatantly moved the goalposts from UK laws being broken to crimes being committed in the UK. Make up your mind!
They were different examples, therefore different standards have to apply.
Sorry... the crime was committed in the US on US property, originating from computers in the UK.
Consider this...
Suppose a fraudster in the US sells "magic software" that either doesn't really exist or, doesn't do what is claimed. Lets further suppose that victims are located everywhere around the world except in the US. Precisely how would you determine which country to extradite him to?
In the case of long-distance crime, the only consistent approach that is possible is for prosecution to take place in the country where the perpetrator was located when the crime was committed.
Suppose Gary McKinnon had also hacked computers in Canada, France, Russia and China and all these countries demanded extradition. Which country should get priority? Do you have a sensible, workable answer to that? The only way any such trial could proceed would be if it took place in the UK with each country providing its own evidence. That being the case, it would seem the mistake Gary McKinnon made was to not be more global in his hacking.
Kaled.
That's not how the law works - the law is based on principles (or it should be).
In the light of a new day I think we need to revisit the Barclay's example. In the scenario you posited, I don't think any UK laws would have been broken. Rather, US laws dealing with fraud would come into play. While over in the UK I think it would be more of a civil action on the part of those affected financially. I'm not sure how civil issues between citizens of different countries works, but somehow I doubt extradition would be involved.
Suppose Gary McKinnon had also hacked computers in Canada, France, Russia and China and all these countries demanded extradition. Which country should get priority?
If the criminal is sitting in jail for 10 years in one country it's hard, if not impossible, for any other country to extradite him. At least not for the next ten years.
After that I guess it depends on who's still interested in pursuing the issue, and who has the best extradition treaties and experiences with the US. Russia and China have no such agreements with the US so far as I'm aware. Canada and France typically refuse extradition to the US, although that's mostly in capital cases because the death penalty is illegal there. So I'm guessing they wouldn't have much luck trying to get the US to let them have the criminal. Those are just guesses on my part though.
In the McKinnon case the UK has repeatedly said no UK laws have been broken. They've consistently refused to prosecute McKinnon despite his insistence that he be charged with something, anything! Because that was really his only hope of avoiding extradition to the US.
In the McKinnon case the UK has repeatedly said no UK laws have been broken. They've consistently refused to prosecute McKinnon despite his insistence that he be charged with something, anything! Because that was really his only hope of avoiding extradition to the US.
Any private citizen in the UK could even now and without having been directly affected by his ( Mckinnon's ) actions make an official complaint to the police about his actions and thus ( theoretically ) he would face prosecution the the UK ..( said "citizen" would probabaly face a lifetime of official harrasment if they did though ) ..another reason why I left the UK along long time ago ..
But the UK CPS ( criminal prosecution service ) a UK government dept would then have to OK it ( ie; authorisise the prosecution )..which they wont because that would thwart the intention of the UK government to have him extradited ..
He is facing catch 22 built at the behest of the US government and facilitated by the UK government ..
The question of the nature of his supposed crimes etc is irrelevant to the legal question of ..a government is suppposed to protect it's citizens from other governments actions ( if said citizen has committed a crime they are supposed to demand and get proof prior to extradition ..the treaty does not require that the US give "proof" ..nor have they done so ..they have "calculated damages" so as to "up" the category of the offense to one that they can now "request extradition" under this one sided treaty ..
The original objections of the US to the treaty ( and the original reasons for the US non ratification ) was that they considered it would be unjust to send a US citizen to the UK if so little proof was required ..
The US government were perfectly correct and laudable in objecting ..no sane government would send extradite it's citizens without proof ..and certainly not on the basis that the original charge could be dropped and new one made at the moment the citizen got of the plane onto foreign soil..( as it stands the treaty allows the US govt to do just that if they so wish ..it does not allow the UK govt to do like wise ..)..
And originally the UK goverenment wasn't about to sign either ..for much the same reasons ..ie that all conditions had to offer the maximum protection to each countries own citizens and that all sides had the same responsibilities , burdens of proof etc etc ..
Problem was ..Blair was then told to "yo ! " ..he did so ..and the UK signed up to it ..onesidedness and all ..
The US government probably couldn't beleive their luck ..
And they ( the US )still took another three years ( until 2006 ) to sign up ..( meanwhile they asked for ..and got ..many protections for their own citizens ..which the UK government didnt ask to be built in for their own people )..
Certain legal minds say that as in fact the US hadn't signed at the time of McKinnons alledged crimes and that the treaty was not drafted to be retro active prior to both parties signing that McKinnon's isn't covered at all by it ..but the UK govt has waived it's citizens rights to that part on McKinnon's behalf ..
McKinnon may or may not be guilty ..
The USA is not strictly at fault ( given the UK's waiving of the non retro active aspect ) either in requesting his extradition under the terms of the treaty ( the creative accounting to justify it's case is reprehensible IMO though ) ..But the UK govt was at fault at the time of signing ..and still is as they can charge him if they want to ..
But that would annoy powerfull interests in the US Military , CIA, FBI etc
[edited by: lawman at 4:43 pm (utc) on Aug. 1, 2009]
Actually he has broken the laws set out in the UK missuse of computors act ..
But as the Uk government wants so desperately to extradite him they say he hasn't broken any of those laws
In the light of a new day I think we need to revisit the Barclay's example. In the scenario you posited, I don't think any UK laws would have been broken. Rather, US laws dealing with fraud would come into play
The problem of long-distance crime was recognised many years ago in the US - that's why certain crimes are defined as "federal" - so that arguments of jurisdiction don't apply. For instance, I believe that any fraud that employs the US Postal Service is defined as a federal crime (even if all parties reside in a single state).
However, there is no international equivalent. There is an international police force of sorts (Interpol) but the only international criminal courts that exist are for the prosecution of war crimes - I don't think the case against Gary McKinnon qualifies as a war crime!
Anyway, if his lawyers can delay things for ten more months, he'll be safe (assuming Labour loose the next election) since both the Liberal and Conservative parties oppose extradition in this case. If necessary, he can always go out and punch someone - that case would then have to be heard first! Alternatively, if someone punches him, he'll have to stay in the UK to give evidence.
Kaled.
