Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

UK Gives Go-Ahead to Gary McKinnon Extradition 309

Posted by Zonk
from the normal-dition-not-enough dept.
robzster1977 writes "Judges in the UK have given the go-ahead to the extradition of UK hacker Gary McKinnon. McKinnon is accused of breaking into US Navy, Army and Department of Defense computers in 2001 and 2002." From the article: "On 4 July the secretary of state signed an order for Mr McKinnon's extradition to the United States for charges connected with computer hacking. Mr McKinnon had exercised his right to submit representations against return but the secretary of state did not consider the issues raised availed Mr McKinnon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Gives Go-Ahead to Gary McKinnon Extradition

Comments Filter:
  • Date? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The MAZZTer (911996) <megazzt@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday July 06, 2006 @06:38PM (#15671467) Homepage
    Gotta wonder if he picked July 4th on purpose. :)
  • Freedom (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06, 2006 @06:39PM (#15671476)
    This is a real tragedy for those who believe in the freedom to break into the computer systems of foreign militaries looking for UFOs.

    Whoever they are.
    • Re:Freedom (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
        I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
      When they locked up the Social Democrats,
        I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
      When they arrested the trade unionists,
        I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
      When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
        When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.

      - Martin Niemöller
      • Re:Freedom (Score:3, Funny)

        by Tackhead (54550)
        > When the Nazis arrested the Communists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
        > When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
        > When they arrested the trade unionists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
        > When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew. When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.

        Now if only they'd come for the trite.

        But I'll settle for

      • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Stickerboy (61554) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @07:03PM (#15671611) Homepage
        When the Americans arrested child rapists,
          I said nothing; after all, I was not a child rapist.
        When they locked up the serial killers,
          I said nothing; after all, I was not a serial killer.
        When they arrested the armed robbers,
          I said nothing; after all, I was not an armed robber.
        When they arrested the spammers,
          I celebrated, because I'm a hypocrite about computer crimes.
          When they arrested me for breaking into a computer network, there was no longer anyone who could protest.

          - Stickerboy
      • Please (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rockhome (97505) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @07:04PM (#15671618) Journal
        Spare me the "hacking i OK if I ain't trying to break shit" bullshit.

        Every hacker that has every been arrested has always claimed that he was only curious and looking around. Let me tell you something, if you walk into my front door, locked or not, that is still trespass, I don't care if you just wanted to get a look at my collection of potato chips resembling presidents.

        This isn't a witch hunt. If you even use a phrase like "I broke in", then you know what side of the law that you are on. These guys are just angry because they know they are criminals, they got caught, and now they are facing the full force of the law. When are all of the Mitnick humpers going to get a clue and maybe not do things tha are illegal?
        • Re:Please (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Amouth (879122) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @07:15PM (#15671684)
          when someone who just looks at unsecured goverment computers serves more time than someone who broke into some ones house and shot and killed some one for shit to pawn for money for drugs..

          i am sorry but when the virtual world hits reality it doesn't seem that punishment fits the crime.
          • when someone who just looks at unsecured goverment computers serves more time than someone who broke into some ones house and shot and killed some one for shit to pawn for money for drugs..

            AKA felony murder, and punishable by the death penalty in many, many states. And these computers weren't unsecured, just because he got in. It's like saying a house was unlocked because you jimmy the front door.
            • they had about the same security as rot13 is for crypto.. and felony murder is yes a major offence.. but how many of them get out after a few years for being good in jail.. this guy woln't get out early because they are using him as an example..

              not quite fair
              • Re:Please (Score:5, Insightful)

                by 70Bang (805280) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @09:52PM (#15672580)


                How soon we forget this story from the 4th:

                Cambridge Breached the Great Firewall of China [slashdot.org]

                Any ideas when Richard Clayton will be extradicted to China [from the UK]?

                And based upon this statedment:

                Clayton, speaking at the Sixth Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies in Cambridge last week, said that the researchers had reported their findings to the Chinese Computer Emergency Response Team.

                It appears acceptable when testing a government's resources if it's from an academic perspective and you report any findings.

                I'm not trolling or tossing flamebait out here. I'd like to know why these jokers are any different, other than it'll be China's choice whether to pursue them, or not, and I'm guessing not will happen because they were nice about reporting their results in the interest of benefiting the object of their efforts. But who gets to decide the intent of the party performing the actions, and after the fact, no less?

                I can see an exception if Cambridge volunteered to do this with China's approval or if China commissioned the activities, either of those in advance.

                Otherwise, what's the difference?


                • well to troll a little.. i bet it has something to do with the Dr. in the names of the people in charge and that they went public.. and that it was aginst china and not the US.. although .. the US isn't as bad..we are headed that way..

                  anyone got a private island i can move too?
            • AKA felony murder, and punishable by the death penalty in many, many states.

              Um... If you believe the system works you've got another thing coming. Especially in Camden, NJ. Last thing you ever want to be is called a "snitch". But I digress...

              A better example would have been to compare him to a rapist who at most will get 20 years and will most likley only server 5.
          • when someone who just looks at unsecured goverment computers serves more time than someone who broke into some ones house and shot and killed some one for shit to pawn for money for drugs..

            Never mind that in most places, the guy who kills someone during an armed robbery will probably go away for life (or lose his life), it sounds like what you're arguing for is even harsher penalties for armed robbers/burglars. OK, that's fine.
          • i am sorry but when the virtual world hits reality it doesn't seem that punishment fits the crime

            In the american federal systen, crimes of violence are almost always prosecuted under state law. If you think sentencing is too light, talk to your state assemblyman or state senator.

            But I wouldn't advise commiting a felony in DC or in any other setting where the feds do have jurisdiction.

        • Spare me the "hacking i OK if I ain't trying to break shit" bullshit.

          This is about someone being condemned unfairly to set a public example. Sort of what the RIAA does with "OMG the evil pirate filesharers!".

          Because if you STILL believe there's justice in the USA, you might as well believe in spaceships from another planet. The USA should be treated like a dictatorship where human rights CONTINUE to be abused systematically.

          Want an example? The NSA spying on the citizens. Curiously, it could be ALSO interpr
          • Unfairly? He broke into their computers. He committed a crime. Now he pays the price. So far, fair. Nowhere is perfect, but the criminal justice system in the US isn't terrible. Most of the problems are inefficiency and letting people off easily, not overly harsh punishment. The USA is not a dictatorship. Human right are still respected. The NSA listened to a few phone calls between people in other countries and terrorist suspects. How does that violate my human rights?
          • I wish I hadn't posted already cause I got mod points and you deserve some inisghtful modding.
        • Re:Please (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Gyarados (893032) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @07:41PM (#15671827)

          If you'd bothered to follow the case from the beginning, you'd understand why so many people are protesting against this series of outrageous decisions.

          The United States have, through massive exaggeration and dishonesty, virtually abducted a British citizen in order to make him a scapegoat on which to blame the exceptional lack of security in their government computer systems.

          • Re:Please (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Millenniumman (924859)
            He broke into their computers. He is a criminal.
            • Re:Please (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Firehed (942385) on Friday July 07, 2006 @01:12AM (#15673391) Homepage
              The ease of him doing so is inexcusable. That's the point here. The security sucked. Yes, I know it's still wrong, but I damn well expect these organizations that PROVIDE national security to be secure (at least within reason). They're dealing with the guy as he should be dealt with, but they're flapping their gums about how he could have been or was a terrorist to cover their own asses - if he was planning to do something malicious, we could all be dead right now. This is one guy who was just playing around and managed to break into government systems.


              Think of it this way. Someone breaks into my house. Sucks to be me, and the guy is still a criminal, even if no damage or harm was done. That same guy breaks into the Pentagon. Sucks to be the Pentagon, and the guy is still a criminal, even if no damage or harm was done. The issue at hand is that the metaphorical pentagon had a wooden front door with a $25 lock from Home Depot like my house, not the $millions steel-reenforced foot-thick armored god-stopper that can withstand a missile that it should have had. What the guy did was wrong and inexcusable, but not nearly as inexcusable as these government entities having absolutely shitty securiy - they're upplaying his role and intentions to make him a scapegoat for their own shortcomings.

              The least we can hope that comes out of this is that they fix the security before some no-talent script kiddie that's a part of a terrorist organization or has other intents to do serious harm comes along and exploits the same wheel of swiss cheese.

        • Re:Please (Score:5, Insightful)

          by johansalk (818687) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @11:39PM (#15673071)
          What punishment do you think would fit the crime of someone walking into your unlocked front door wanting to get a look at your collection of potato chips? would you be justified if you wanted him hung, drawn and quartered to make an exmaple of him? It seems that the essence of the case against him for extradition is the doutful claim that he caused criminal damages estimated at $700,000 (that's $5,000 per PC), and for that he faces 60 to 70 years in an American prison. This all the while the Enron guys caused billions upon billions of real, indisputable damage to poor folks and were dealt not even a fraction of the imprisonment per dollar he's facing. In the UK this oddball would almost certainly face some counselling or cummunity service, whereas in the US he... fuck it, I don't even consider the US a civilised nation after Gitmo and "extraordinary rendition". You guys had that shitface Ashcroft and now you have that shitface Gonzalez.
      • The obvious (but not terribly popular) answer to that little puzzle is for you to be a Nazi.

        That way you get to do the arresting.
      • When they arrested me for actually breaking the law, though...
              Well, you know... fair cop.

        -Gary Mckinnon
      • Gary McKinnon is a hacker, a criminal. Are you saying that Communists, Social Democrats, trade unionists, and Jews are criminals? Do they break into other people's property?
  • by chill (34294) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @06:39PM (#15671478) Journal
    Hey, Gary.

    Conjugal visits? Mmmm. Not that I know of. Y'know, minimum-security prison is no picnic. I have a client in there right now. He says the trick is: kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be all right.
    • Re:The trick is... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by killjoe (766577) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @08:04PM (#15671973)
      This guy modded as being funny but it's sad. Every crime in america contains an adjuct sentence of repeated forcible rape and gang rape. Even for mild offences like check kiting, or smoking dope. Whatever your sentence is you have to add being raped several times a week to it.

      That's what passes for law and order here. Being raped for all crimes no matter how minor.
  • good (Score:5, Informative)

    by mr_tommy (619972) * <tgraham@RABBITgmail.com minus herbivore> on Thursday July 06, 2006 @06:41PM (#15671487) Journal
    One finds it hard to disagree with the judgement that a hacker who illegally breaks into someone's system should face jail time. Regardless of his supposed hunt (and his curiously as yet un-proven discovery) of UFO technology, or the dubious figures of damages the US government produced, what he did was wrong. The problem really lies in the way we in the UK have implemented extradition legislation to the US. Evidence is not required going one way - UK -> USA - but is the other, as congress has yet to ratify / pass the law. This seems remarkably un-fair on British citizens, and in this sense, you can understand his frustration - and that of others - note the so called Natwest 3 who appear to be heading off to western shores in the near future.
    • Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)

      by biglig2 (89374) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @06:52PM (#15671553) Homepage Journal
      Exactly right, even leaving aside the whole issue of how bad what he did really is, it is way too easy for the US to get someone extradited from the UK. They could put him in Guantanamo Bay for all we know...

      I'm proud to be a subject of Her Majesty, and accept my responsibilities under her laws - but how come I have to accept rulings from a judge in Brussels or the US? I'm sure they're all very nice people, but they're nto the boss of me. Or at least they shouldn't be.
      • Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06, 2006 @07:05PM (#15671626)

        how come I have to accept rulings from a judge in the US?

        [1] Because you hacked into a computer in the US. Don't commit crimes in other countries, and you won't have to answer to their legal system.

        [2] Because the elected government in your own country decided to ship your sorry ass over here to answer for your crime.

        • Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)

          by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @08:00PM (#15671949)
          Don't commit crimes in other countries, and you won't have to answer to their legal system.

          The Chinese government hereby requests your extradition for execution and subsequent trial for voicing opinions in direct oposition to the Party's doctrine on the Internet acessible (by mistake) from China. That is if Iranians do not manage to get you first for daring to speak ill of Islam (evidence of which was secretly presented in a secret prioceeding of a secret court). And so on...

          Newsflash: the whole point is that one, by definition, cannot be held liable for crimes abroad if he/she was not physically there while commiting them.

          An accusation of "computer" or "internet" crime does not magically change the basic logic of this, it would be equally silly if he had made prank calls to the Iranian Mullahs (severely punishable in Iran, I am sure) or sent booze by mail to the Saudi Crown Prince (which would probably get someone from Saudi Arabia beheaded if he had done so). The foreign laws simply do not apply to activities commitied while in UK.

          [2] Because the elected government in your own country decided to ship your sorry ass over here to answer for your crime.

          Which of course is the apex of the stupidity on the part of the UK government and an extemely dangerous precedent. In essence, the UK has acknowledged supremacy of US law and courts over its own by doing this. It is a stance of a poodle beaten into sulking submition, not a proud, independent nation.

          • Re:good (Score:2, Insightful)

            by wombert (858309)
            the whole point is that one, by definition, cannot be held liable for crimes abroad if he/she was not physically there while commiting them.

            So if I push this big red button, and it launches a missile across the border...
            • Re:good (Score:3, Insightful)

              The whole point is that one, by definition, cannot be held liable for crimes abroad if he/she was not physically there while commiting them.
              So if I push this big red button, and it launches a missile across the border...


              ...Then your home country will prosecute you, or risk retaliation from the other country.
            • So if I push this big red button, and it launches a missile across the border...

              Then you would be held responsible under the laws of the country you are in, with your local prosecutor being aided by the foreign country representatives. Most countries have laws against launching bombs at their neighbours. If the government of your country was supporting you instead, then it would be an act of war, as an act of launching missiles (as opposed to prank phone calls and hacking in search of UFOs) is internationa

      • Then you don't really accept your responsibility under your Majesty's laws, do you? It was Queenie herself who signed the law agreeing to the extradition treaty.
        • Re:good (Score:3, Informative)

          by Petrushka (815171)

          It was Queenie herself who signed the law agreeing to the extradition treaty.

          Just for reference -- I'm sure there are those who don't know -- Queenie herself signs all the parliamentary laws in the UK. (Though it's also worth pointing out that the last time a British monarch got away with refusing to sign one was in 1708.)

          • This is all true. Was it Churchill who said that Democracy is the worst system of Government, apart form all the others? What is it, about 65% of people did not vote for the current UK government, what kind of a mandate is that? Of course, it's all the people's own fault, they can't be arsed to vote any more.

            Can you imagine what it must be like to be the Queen though? The temptation to tell Blair to just fuck right off... You gotta admire her restraint. Perhaps she's saving it for Brown? "I have decided upo
            • I'm certain that any temptation Lizzie might entertain is immediately quashed by the knowledge that the Windsors receive a royal bungload of money from the government for their maintenance. Attempts in the past to reduce that funding have been met with shocked appeals to the commoners about preserving the majesty of the crown; the commoners eat that shit up like blood pudding, apparently.
            • Can you imagine what it must be like to be the Queen though? The temptation to tell Blair to just fuck right off...

              I believe the proper wording that the monarch is supposed to use on such an occasion, at least when being asked to sign something into law, is, "La reine s'avisera."

      • Re:good (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LWATCDR (28044)
        So if I broke into your bank account managed to steal a few thousand from you, you wouldn't mind if I didn't tired under UK law. Or at all?
        I mean since I wasn't in the UK when I committed the crime then it really isn't any of their business.

    • The problem really lies in the way we in the UK have implemented extradition legislation to the US. Evidence is not required going one way - UK -> USA

      The Daily Telegraph has been running a campaign and is soliciting "signatures" to an open letter [telegraph.co.uk] to the home secretary demanding changes. This has been prompted by the case of the "NatWest three", who have been caught up by the Enron scandal, although there seems to be no reason for prosecution of these three in the US (since all the allegations concer

    • >One finds it hard to disagree with the judgement that a hacker who illegally breaks into someone's system should face jail time.

      Shouldn't that depend on how much damage the person did and what their intent was, just like it does for illegal entry in meatspace? It's a non-violent crime and a non-prison sentence might make sense. Trials are for answering questions like that.

      If the goal were a fair trial, this twit could have been left in the UK to face the perfectly adequate courts there.
    • note the so called Natwest 3 who appear to be heading off to western shores in the near future.


      sorry, are we talking about the elves from lord of the rings? I'm confused....
  • by know1 (854868) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @06:42PM (#15671502)
    If they leave the big red button there with no security around it or guards, eventually someone is going to push it simply because they can. This guy could have actually been destructive, and took their network down. He didn't. spare me the "yadda yadda it was very serious" replies, anyone with a glint of technical knowledge knows it wasn't.

    Hail the new american slogan, "It isn't fascism when we do it!"

    I've seen this guy in interviews. A clever man, who obviously has a lot more to give to the world. Shame he's going to get disappeared.
    • Would you commit murder if there was no such thing as police?
      • hummm .. to be honest.. yea.. i more than not would... sure i would regret it but i would be sure in my self that i was cleaning the the population.

        now the real question you have to ask is.. whom would i kill..
      • No offence, but that's a little assinine. Are you likening a computer crime that is more akin to trespass, to murder? If you think what he did is on the same level as murder then I despair of you, I really do.
      • Would you commit murder if there was no such thing as police?

        Personally no, but to be fair having police and death penalties doesn't really seem to disuade people from murdering.

        We had 300 murders in my city alone last year and it isn't as bad as Camden across the river.
        • having police and death penalties doesn't really seem to disuade people from murdering.

          Well, the latter sure cuts down on repeat offenders!
        • I deal daily with students (3rd graders) and punishment is something I deal with all the time. One question that has been nagging at me (but no one has asked) is: why do we punish? Is it to discourage crime? Is it to exact revenge or justice? This question comes to my mind about once a week, and I use it to keep myself from taking things personally when I have to 'mete out justice.'

          There is another reason we punish those who commit crimes: it is part of the contract between us and authority. We know

      • Would you commit murder if there was no such thing as police?

        In traditional societies such matters are settled by the warlord, the family or the clan. Sometimes through the punishment of nn innocent: the gang rape of your wife or daughter perhaps.

        There is always a mechanism in place to discipline those who cannot discipline themselves.

        The question you ask has no meaning.

    • I doubt he's going to rott in some prison. Most likely, they are going to cut a deal with him if he educates them in what he did/how he did it. We'll never hear about it though.
    • If they leave the big red button there with no security around it or guards, eventually someone is going to push it simply because they can.

      Nobody waved a big red button in front of his face; he found it and pushed it. You can argue malicious intent, and it will indeed probably affect his sentencing, but tresspass is still a crime. If you don't like it, why don't you open up your home and information systems to random strangers first?

      Hail the new american slogan, "It isn't fascism when we do it!"

      • Definition of Fascism: "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism."

        That's it! As long as the economic controls are more akin to monkeys hitting buttons, they can't call us fascists! You, dear Mr. Thered, deserves an Iron Cross. I mean, a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

        • You, dear Mr. Thered, deserves an Iron Cross. I mean, a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
          Wow! First reply is already hitting Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org]! This isn't even a terribly clever ad hominem. Are you too lazy or too stupid to come up with an intelligent response? Oh yeah, this is Slashdot, never mind.
          • Considering that I was more making the comment that the 'belligerent nationalism' and 'social control' seemed to be some politicians goal of late, and yet the idea of economic controls in an anathema to the Republican party, your response is a bit overdone. But, like you said, this is slashdot, so go ahead and take everything personal.
    • First, if this guy was going to Guantanamo Bay, he'd already be there. You can tell that he is not going there because this is being handled publically in civil courts. He is going to have a public trial before a regularly constituted court, and if convicted he will go to a civilian federal prison.

      Secondly, you obviously have no idea of what constitutes fascism as a political and economic ideology, please read up on it here [wikipedia.org].

      Third, can you please tone down the knee-jerk anti-americanism is regards to ran
      • "Third, can you please tone down the knee-jerk anti-americanism is regards to random subjects that have nothing to do with its foreign policy?"

        Yes. America is a special place. You have no right to be anti american. you can be anti any other country but not anti american.

        Also please wait till america is actually a fascist state before ciritizing it. There is no sense in critizing it during it's slide into facism.
    • If they leave the big red button there with no security around it or guards, eventually someone is going to push it simply because they can.

      So if you leave your eldery mum on a park bench for an hour, feeding the pigeons, are you "fascist" when you applaud the police for arresting someone that pushes her aside and goes through her purse? I mean, she's just sitting there, with no guards or anything. It's just going to happen - it's probably even a big, red purse.

      You're exactly the sort of idiot that ma
  • by earthlingpink (884677) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @06:46PM (#15671524) Homepage
    What's the consensus on this board, guys? Will Mr. McKinnon receive a trial of comparable fairness in the US as in the UK? If found guilty, will his sentence be proportionate to his crime (the DoJ has indicted him on seven counts of computer fraud, each with a maximum of ten years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine)?
    • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @07:05PM (#15671629) Homepage
      Since the first time I heard the expression "Truth, Justice and the American Way" I asked myself, why are those listed separately? In my naive days, I used to think that truth and justice were part of the American way. Clearly, this isn't the case any longer... was it ever? Looking back on the way the nation's founders started a nation with slavery, the nation expanded by committing mass murder, making treaties, breaking them when it was convenient.

      I used to feel like the Americans (myself included) always wore the "white hat." Looking back, I'm just not qite so certain of that.

      So yes, it now makes more sense to me that those three items are listed separately... The American Way does not include truth or justice.
      • When I used to hear it, I always figured that Truth and Justice are largely universal, and that the American Way stood for the methods by which those were safeguarded in the United States. Haven't thought much about the phrase in years, though.
      • Looking back on the way the nation's founders started a nation with slavery

        You wouldn't be confusing the nation's founders with the European colonists that actually showed up with and imported more slaves for a good 100+ years before the country was formed? Or the bitter civil war that was fought, among reasons, to put a stop to those practices in the remaining states that were still clinging to the colonial economic model? Oh, I guess you would be confusing those.
        • Watching the History Channel, on or about July 4th, I learned that when the declaration of independence was being drafted, there was language in there about the abolition of slavery as it was an area that quite definitely contrasted with the statement "...all men are created equal." We know which side of the argument won that one. That's the reality upon which I based my assertion.

          Even now, cheaper labor at ANY cost is the order of the day and I'm still waiting for a list of businesses that are not guilty
  • by Quirk (36086) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @06:48PM (#15671535) Homepage Journal
    "Poor dumb son of a bitch", were the words uttered by Dorthy Parker over the casket of F. Scott Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald had sold out to Hollywood and, if I understand Parker's sentiment, Fitzgerald was way out of his league in the dog eat dog world of Hollywood.

    Gary McKinnon is another poor dumb son of a bitch. He may well be mentally ill. There's a saying among criminals, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. I think McKinnon will get eaten alive, served up as a reminder that big brother cuts you no slack when it comes to stealing their information.

    Master criminals execute plans, most convicts commit crimes. Convicts get caught up in committing a crime, they're their own drug dealers and they're junkies. Their brains serve them up a high that comes from breaking the law. Convicts fill our prisons and take their cred from the hard time they do. McKinnon is his own junkie, a convict juiced on committing a crime. His delusions will probablly cost him his life whether he gets to go on living or not.

    just my loose change

  • by purple_cobra (848685) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @07:09PM (#15671647)
    Great to see the UK judiciary bending-over for a foreign power. Maybe there's a some sort of medal in it for you too?
    McKinnon committed a crime here too and, as a UK citizen, he should be tried here. Of course, the USUK 'special relationship' is the most important factor here so the extradition order was signed without so much as a second glance.
    "Britons never shall be slaves?"
    Not in this day and age.
    • As a Brit, I have to ask, really, does anyone in the US actually care about the special relationship? Because all it seems to be, as you quite rightly state, is the UK metaphorically 'bending over'.
      • As a Brit, I have to ask, really, does anyone in the US actually care about the special relationship?

        As an American, I have to tell you, really, if given the option I'd rather be tried in the UK and sentenced to jail in a UK prision rather than one over here.
      • In all honesty, I fucking don't.

        I mean, I don't have anything against Britain. I like Guiness and Monty Python; I don't care to hear how we're corrupting the English language or that our culture is boorish, but other than that, I care as much about GB as I do Sweden.

        I think the "special relationship" is more of a strategic and diplomatic alliance of our governments, than any brotherly feeling between the citizens. For some reason, the US and the UK 'trust' each other a little more than a normal internat
    • You do realize that if McKinnon had hacked French computers, the French would have extradited him in exactly the same manner?

      In addition, there has been at least one case in the past few years where the UK extradited an American to face trial in the UK?

      Most of the countries in the world have extradition treaties with each other. What "special relationship" do you think is needed?
    • Great to see the UK judiciary bending-over for a foreign power.

      Would you say that the Spanish government was "bending over" for the UK in this case [bbc.co.uk]?

      How about the Nigerians? Are you ashamed to make them bend over [africamasterweb.com]?

      Perhaps the Italians are feeling bent over by the UK [timesonline.co.uk]?

      Or, perhaps the Germans, when they extradited a former US Marine to the UK [cnn.com]?

      One is tempted to think that you are, perhaps, exhibiting selective distaste for extradition when it suits your purely political posturing?
  • by Nice2Cats (557310) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @07:18PM (#15671696)
    I can't wait to see his American lawyer claim that he didn't understand what he was doing -- how was he to know that the defense computers were actually defence computers? How could he realize that his behavior was bad behaviour? After that, you can only hope that the court will table the claims...
  • by Kittenman (971447) on Thursday July 06, 2006 @07:18PM (#15671700)
    Bit of a worry really. McKinnon is a British subject, found guilty of a crime against nationals of a foreign country. Why is he being extradited rather than sentenced and imprisoned in the UK?

    Another case is Richard Read - the "shoe bomber" from a few years back. He was a British subject (admittedly they didn't want him) and is held prisoner somewhere in the US (or you-know-where in Cuba).

    Does holding a passport, or nationality mean nothing? No matter what your nationality when you do a crime against the US, they get to do what they want with you.
    • I'm no lawyer, but, computer crime, like wire & mail fraud, is considered to have 'taken place' at end where the numbers get shifted around. So it doesn't matter where you are, it's the computer you're hacking into that determines the laws you have to follow. Kinda sucks, but such is life.
    • The US throws its weight arround. Leans on other nations to get her way. It isn't right, and as an American citizen it disgusts me. Like how we lean on other nations to move their policies closer in alignment with our own.

      Why do they do it? Fear and Greed. As the US economy dwindles, the greed will be less...and perhaps as other nations ramp up their offensive capabilities...fear will be less.

      And cue the tools who will call me an idiot because these policies 'keep me safe'. No thanks...I think these p
    • I think this is mainly a British thing. Most EU countries only extradite to other EU countries. And IIRC, in Germany, the contries have to send the German convicts back after sentencing if they request it.
  • that gives their citizen away to an other country, whatever the charges are.

    This man, however guilty, sick, or whatever his problem is, should be sentenced in the UK.
    This is my personal viewpoint so if you do not agree, you are free to disagree....

  • Guilty! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sean4u (981418)
    Only it's not a very grave crime, is it? I like the potato chip analogy - he did look at military potato chips, though, which most people would know is considered more naughty by most countries. I hope his counsel is good and makes sure the sentence fits the crime. I don't like it when somebody hacks my computer, it makes me angry. I'd want to be able to tell them how angry I was. I hope the judge stops there, and marks McKinnon's card, maybe wastes some of McKinnon's time and money. I think a custodial se
  • We give you UK citizens from Guantanamo and you give us McKinnon.

    It's really not personal.
  • by m_member (771187) on Friday July 07, 2006 @03:05AM (#15673682)
    There is an argumenent in the UK at the moment about deporting and extraditing people to nations who have poor human rights records. I think a nation who imprisons people without trial and without legal representation is a perfect example. Step forward the land of the (mostly) free.

Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in BASIC after reaching puberty.

Working...