Should Gary McKinnon be tried in the US

Hi everyone.
Just wonder what are your opinions on this? Should he be extradited to the states or should he be tried in England. Also what do you think this represents for the UK. Here is the latest in the story.

Quote:

---

UK hacker 'should be extradited'

Mr McKinnon could face a lengthy jail sentence in the US
UK hacker Gary McKinnon should be recommended for extradition to the US, a district judge has ruled.
The decision means Mr McKinnon will face trial in America for what the US has called "the biggest military hack of all time".
Although he has admitted hacking US military networks, Mr McKinnon said he was motivated by curiosity not malice.
The final decision on whether he should be sent to the US for trial rests with the home secretary.

Hack attack
The decision was given at Bow Street Magistrates' Court in London and ends three years of uncertainty for Mr McKinnon.
Speaking outside the court after hearing the decision Mr McKinnon said: "It went as expected and now the appeals process can now start."
Karen Todner, Mr McKinnon's solicitor, said: "We're obviously very disappointed with the judgement that was given this morning. We're proposing to appeal this to the Secretary of State, and if we're still refused we will then appeal to the High Court for a decision to allow Gary to be tried here as a British citizen."

Mr McKinnon was first arrested in 2002 by the UK's National Hi-Tech Crime Unit for hacking into a series of computer networks used by the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Defense.

The US in its case for extradition said Mr McKinnon caused more than $700,000 (£375,235) of damage while exploring the computer networks at various US military institutions.
It said one attack at the Earle Naval Weapons Station took place soon after September 11, 2001 made it impossible to use critical systems. The US Department of Justice said it took a month to get systems working in the aftermath of this attack.

Mr McKinnon has admitted that he spent almost two years exploring these networks but has said he was motivated by a search for what he called "suppressed technology".
In a recent BBC interview, Mr McKinnon said he had got close to getting pictorial evidence of technologies that could be of huge benefit to everyone but the US government was not releasing.
In numerous interviews about the case, Mr McKinnon has resisted attempts to portray him as a hacking mastermind. By contrast he said he was a "bumbling hacker" that exploited the lax security policies of the US military.
One base hacked kept US warships supplied with food and munitions
Speaking after the hearing ended, he said: "My intention was never to disrupt security. The fact that I logged on with no password showed there was no security to begin with."
Ms Todner said she was worried that any sentence Mr McKinnon received in the US would be "disproportionate" to the scale of the offences he committed.
"There is power under the Computer Misuse Act to charge him here and he could stand trial here," said Ms Todner. "In fact, had that happened he probably would have been tried, served his sentence and have been released by now"
If tried and found guilty in the US, Mr McKinnon could face decades in jail and fines totalling millions of dollars.

---

Sounds incocent but I do not believe him. Besides who is to say he wasn't working for MI6?


Oops, wait I was just curious. Yeah that's it. I am inclined based on what I have read to just say, leave him to the UK courts.

He should be tried in the jurisdiction where he lives.
The implications of extraditing him are enormous and
frightening. If I go on the internet and post on a forum
that Mohammad Sucks, should I be extradited to Iran?
:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by rcgreen
If I go on the internet and post on a forum that Mohammad Sucks, should I be extradited to Iran?

---

Of course not!! If you did, that would not be an attack on any country.

What he did was a direct attack on the United States. All US hatred aside, what he did should be considered an act of war.

I can't see a single reason why he shouldnt be extradited to the US. If you think otherwise, it is because your vision is clouded by your political views of the US.

-Deeboe

Quote:

---

I can't see a single reason why he shouldnt be extradited to the US. If you think otherwise, it is because your vision is clouded by your political views of the US.

---

Besides the fact that this one of the more narrow minded posts i have seen in cosmos in a while here are a couple of reasons why.
1) Arrested in 2002/3 in the uk. Probably because the administration wants to score some browny points showing how thought they are on computer crime and they just dint want to take the risk of putting an americain citizen on trial.
2) Up to recently the us give no proof of a crime being committed. That is more a problem with the agreement between the UK and the US. The US can demand an extradition form the UK without presenting proof of a crime. As far as i can tell they have still not presented any proof of his crimes.
Have to go eat so will finish this when i come back.

surprised that this is seen as an ``act of war'' by a homicidal american with a Sun Tzu quote as a signature?

no.

i'm glad someone whose vision is clear and free from political views on the US isn't a US politician. the last thing we need is another ``War on x''.

edit

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Deeboe

I can't see a single reason why he shouldnt be extradited to the US.

---

then obviously, you don't know your ``enemy''.

aaah yes. i do appreciate a bit of irony from time to time.

If I didn't think the British would handle it in a fair manner I may think otherwise. If the US feels so strongly about it they can present evidence in a court within the United Kingdom.

//EDIT on the same token if this was a US person hacking into the UK parliment and stealing files of the Home Secretary that would piss off some peeps over there too, who would probably think the same thing as some "homocidal americans" think. ;)

The biggest problem I have with the extradition is that it took the States a couple of years to decide that they felt strongly enough about his “crimes” to want his extradition. To me, as I said, it seems it is more politically motivated than judicially motivated. Also the case being presented by the US doesn’t seem totally credible. A month to get a critical military system back up and running after a couple of files being deleted?
For me he was physically in England when he committed the crimes, so he should be tried and judged in England. Just like in every other case concerning computer crime, the person was tried in the country in which they were arrested.

He committed a crime AGAINST the USA it doesnt matter where it happened, it was against the US so he needs to be tried by the US.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by The Texan
He committed a crime AGAINST the USA it doesnt matter where it happened, it was against the US so he needs to be tried by the US.

---

That is exactly right!!!!

P.S., I've never been called homicidal american before. I'll have to change my business card. :)

-Deeboe

Quote:

---

States a couple of years to decide that they felt strongly enough about his “crimes” to want his extradition

---

Perhaps it took that long to investigate?

Quote:

---

A month to get a critical military system back up and running after a couple of files being deleted?

---

If they weren't exactly sure who, how, or what network and routers he came through along with the fact that they aren't losing revenue from missed amazon.com like sales - it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Still I think he can be tried against UK laws. I would even bet in some cases they are more restictive? But the US is within it's right to request extratiction? This was a government and miltiary target.

If I missed it please forgive me, but I didn't see his nationality posted. I assume he is British.

And that is key to his situation (and assuming this will be considered a crime and not an attack). It's not a matter of where he committed the crime If he is an American then we retained the right, worldwide to have them returned. If not, I'm confident there's British Bubba who needs a new toy.

cheers

I suppose it's too late for him to claim that he was
only doing penetration testing?
:cool:

The crime was committed in the US, even though the culprit was in the UK. Therefore, he should be tried in the US.

If I a Yankee in Texas at the state line, then shoot a Mexican dead across the border with my high-powered rifle, you bet I'll be tried in Mexico. That, or I'm just highly confused.

Quote:

---

Perhaps it took that long to investigate?

---

Sorry Road I cant buy into that. He was arrested by the English police in 2002 and indicted in the states. Which means they had enought evidence to put him on trial. the indictment was posted in 2002 so they had investigated the case why drop all procedings at the time?
From CNN.
source :

Quote:

---

McKinnon was first arrested in 2002 but action against him was discontinued.

---

Quote:

---

quote:
A month to get a critical military system back up and running after a couple of files being deleted?


If they weren't exactly sure who, how, or what network and routers he came through along with the fact that they aren't losing revenue from missed amazon.com like sales - it doesn't seem unreasonable.

---

At the time they said when he was indicted in 2002 :

Quote:

---

Because of the alleged break-in, which occurred immediately after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the whole system was effectively shut down for a week, officials said at the time.

---

They are saying now :

Quote:

---

The US alleges that during his hacking spree he caused $700,000 (£375,235) of damage. One network he damaged took more than a month to repair, says the US.

---

Not very consistant.

I would also like to see the US to present evidence of his crimes which it has not done yet. Here is his original indictment in virginia :

indictment
I haven't found mention of the $700,000 in the indictment. Must be inflation. :D

Quote:

---

I haven't found mention of the $700,000 in the indictment. Must be inflation.

---

Nah! MURACU .............. now we know what happened to all those Enron accountants?

;) :p :D

:D That could explain it.

im with RC...extradite him to iran

seriously after the events of the past week if you want to see him fairly punished let him be tried in england. but on the other had we could extradite him try him and sentence him to a high paying info-sec job with the military.

It does seem odd after reading MURACUs last post. Maybe they want him on their side?

Honestly, I'm not sure how any of that really matters. Sure, the severity and the charges need and must be specified before extradition, but he should be given to the US regardless. I don't understand why people have such a hard time with technological crimes.

I'm a Spaniard at the Portugese border, and shoot someone dead on the other side. Where am I tried? Portugal of course! That is where the injustice occured.

I'm in England and I infiltrate/damage in the USA across the border. Where am I tried? How is this confusing?.....

Quote:

---

I'm in England and I infiltrate/damage in the USA across the border. Where am I tried? How is this confusing?.....

---

It isn't.................it is the internet, which does NOT have conventional boundaries and is not governed by international law. To imply that geographical boundaries delimit the internet is patently flawed.

For extradition to be in any way valid, the alleged activity must be illegal in the country in which it was initiated and would need to be tried and proven there.

The USA does NOT own the World and has no damn right trying to impose its laws on UK citizens resident in the UK. We have our own laws thank you very much.

Think about it folks, how many US journalists, authors and broadcasters have been extradited to China for criticising the regime there? It is illegal in China ;)

The issue here is one of jurisdiction and extradition of YOUR OWN CITIZENS to be tried by a foreign court. Where they were actually resident in the country where they comitted the offence, the case is reasonably clear cut, except for religious and political "crimes".

Where there was a crime, it is where it was comitted that is important. The argument about shooting people across borders is spurious, it is an offence both sides, and it is the side where the gunman was positioned that is the determining factor.

One could postulate that the reason the USA wants to extradite him is because the Brits decided not to go forward with prosecution in 2002...

Quote:

---

McKinnon was first arrested in 2002 but action against him was discontinued.

---

... So the USA began gathering the evidence to make a case, then it started extradition proceedings which take forever and now we are getting to the point where the extradition hearing is imminent... Four years is hardly a long time when we are talking about lawyers, lawyers fees and governments.

If the authorities in the country where the crime was commited from won't punish then it is quite reasonable for the country that fell victim to wish to attempt to punish. I have no problem with it. Had Britain done the right thing in the first place we wouldn't be talking about this now.

Quote:

---

Had Britain done the right thing in the first place we wouldn't be talking about this now.

---

I am sure that they did, and that our Crown Prosecution Service is no different from similar bodies across the World. They will not pursue a "no win" case, that is, lacking in admissible evidence............. or, in this case I would suspect just lacking in evidence.

Quote:

---

So the USA began gathering the evidence to make a case, then it started extradition proceedings

---

Well, they certainly took their time :eek: The onus should now be on them to prove to the satisfaction of a British court that British law was broken. American law is irrelevant, as the guy is a British citizen, and did what he did whilst on British soil.

A further complication is that I suspect that the offences were prior to current extradition arrangements. We generally don't backdate laws over here ;) The subtlety there is that the guy was actually arrested , which puts a timestamp on the case. Under our rules, if he had gone on the run and only got arrested last week, then current legislation would apply.

Also, the proceedings thus far have been on the validity of the extradition application NOT on the validity of the charges.

TECHNICALY speaking, no harm was done. And I would also like to point out that he is being used by the american government to try and gain political power by appearing strong by crusifying this guy.

There are specific laws to deal with this kind of incident, lets use those rather than handing him over to the US.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Noia
TECHNICALY speaking, no harm was done....
There are specific laws to deal with this kind of incident, lets use those rather than handing him over to the US.

---

Oh come on now, granted they may be inflated but he did toss things around a bit.

Quote:

---

The US in its case for extradition said Mr McKinnon caused more than $700,000 (£375,235) of damage while exploring the computer networks at various US military institutions.

It said one attack at the Earle Naval Weapons Station took place soon after September 11, 2001 made it impossible to use critical systems. The US Department of Justice said it took a month to get systems working in the aftermath of this attack.

---

Regardless, I'm all for having it disposed of over there. But you have to have Nihil as the Judge (especially during sentencing) and Tiger Shark as the prosecutor.

:D

For extradition to be in any way valid, the alleged activity must be illegal in the country in which it was initiated and would need to be tried and proven there.

The USA does NOT own the World and has no damn right trying to impose its laws on UK citizens resident in the UK. We have our own laws thank you very much.

Think about it folks, how many US journalists, authors and broadcasters have been extradited to China for criticising the regime there? It is illegal in China ;)

The issue here is one of jurisdiction and extradition of YOUR OWN CITIZENS to be tried by a foreign court. Where they were actually resident in the country where they comitted the offence, the case is reasonably clear cut, except for religious and political "crimes".

Where there was a crime, it is where it was comitted that is important. The argument about shooting people across borders is spurious, it is an offence both sides, and it is the side where the gunman was positioned that is the determining factor. [/B][/QUOTE]

What assurance do we in the US have the the UK will actually try him and give a damn? this crime wasnt committed against their country so they really have no incentive to really punish him at all? the only thing that will even spur them to give him a harsh punishment ( if he is tried there) is that the world is watching them.

Well Tex~

Quote:

---

What assurance do we in the US have the the UK will actually try him and give a damn? this crime wasnt committed against their country so they really have no incentive to really punish him at all? the only thing that will even spur them to give him a harsh punishment ( if he is tried there) is that the world is watching them.

---

That one is easy.............

Why are British soldiers dying in Afghanistan and Iraq on a daily basis, alongside American forces, even as we speak?

I am sure that this guy would have been prosecuted, but the US government bodies did not provide the evidence and support that was required. They were the ones who "did not give a damn" as it goes.............. seems that it might even have been their security policy back then? :D

Why did they not provide the evidence on a timely basis?
Why did they not support their British colleagues in putting together a concrete prosecution?

There is some serious a$$ covering being attempted here, and our courts should not support it, nor I hope will they, other than it will produce a total meltdown of the trash who have been mismanaging this country for the last 10 years or so.

Unfortunately, the repercussions will mean that you will not be getting any British support in future.............. OH well! just re-introduce the draft and you can make up for that?

This case has bugger all to do with justice folks; this is pure politics, please trust me on that.

Another technical problem over here, is that the proceedings seem to have gone too far into our legal system. The guy was arrested and arraigned AFAIK, so there is still a "pending case" in our legal system. If the case was formally dropped then the extradition must die with it? So, it must be brought to "completion" in OUR courts, FIRST, or I am certain that our Appeals Court will throw it out.

Now, there is plenty of precedent for a person being dealt with by his local judicial system first and then being extradited/deported . Obviously that would be a far more acceptable scenario for the politicos? It provides a level of impartiality and credibility, does it not? We would have to avoid any question of "double jeopardy", so our action would be relatively technical and low key.

This is something of a politically sensitive area here, as our street thug Home Secretary just got fired because foreign criminals were not being deported.

Our politicians are no different from yours, they look after themselves first.

That's life (pond life :D )

Nihil, I do see your point and just so you know I have no problem with the UK or it citizens, you included :). I wonder could he be tried in both places? i.e. he gets a 30 year prison sentence and spends 15 of it in the UK and the other 15 in the US. or is that not feasible?

edit/ I also appreciate the support yall have given us in Iraq and elsewhere.

Hmmm,

Quote:

---

I wonder could he be tried in both places?

---

That is also easy, provided that the "double jepoardy" issue is avoided. That says that you cannot be charged/tried for the same crime twice. ;)

Now, he has committed some relatively minor offences over here, so that would be irrelevant, and he couldn't even be charged with them in the US, as they relate to local (UK) usage. They would not interfere at all.

As for the USA, We would want the heads of at least one senior politicion............"condom rice" would do nicely, if we cannot have monkeyface/brain.

And a clean sweep of the garbage who let this happen................that means 2/3/4 star generals. And some "suits"

News just came on ...........SEVEN of our people died in Iraq this week..........???????????????????

As soon as this crap hits our appeals court, then the substance behind the case will be brought up. That is when the problems will start.

Please think about this:

IT DID NOT TAKE FOUR YEARS FOR THE US AND UK TO INVADE IRAQ

;)

This will be brought up during the term of a government about to lose power..............probably two governments?

I feel a crime is punishable based on the local or national laws of it's origin, with exception.

I also feel that in the case of egregious crimes crossing local or national authoritative boundaries or acts by citizens of another locality, the authorities involved must have implemented statutes of extradiction based on official written agreements which are not politically motivated as their source. There must be sufficient legal/moral grounds for the extradition based on both countries laws.

An example of civil crime punishable locally?
A young boy of Colorado shoots a BB gun at tin cans which are only 50ft away but across a state borderline, say Utah, where it's illegal to own or operate a BB gun. What authority does the Utah deputy have if he encounters the boy?

An example of a felonious crime, with complicated extradiction?
A man commits the murder of his family, depletes his bank account and runs away to another country with a lover. In the new country, he has multiple disagreements with his lover and soon enough kills her too. He then hides in another overseas country to escape prosecution. In the final country, he assaults a few people in a pub, one severely, and is hauled into jail. If all 3 countries get word of his whereabouts, to whom is he liable for legal punishment and how do the authorities work this out?

There are far more situations people can get themselves into then laws that strictly apply to a situation and it appears to me, because of this, some laws are applied to cases that are much more "gray" than black and white. In the US, a substantial portion of court judgements are made from case law as we go along and case law has a hefty authoritative weight.

Even so, I believe from a moral/ethical standpoint there should be justice, but how justice is worked out may depend on more than one authority and not every one will be satisfied.

Now that I'm back on the posted subject, I don't know enough of the tangible damage Gary McKinnon caused but I would leave it to the UK authorities to decide if he's extraditable. If the UK decides there is insufficient cause for extradition, then I agree with them. The US should take the proverbial pie in the face, fix their seemingly inadequate security and FIRE the IT directors/technicians responsible for post-911 security laxness.

Simply my feelings based on my limited knowledge of law and justice.

**No suspects or inmates were hurt in the creation of this post**

From a financial stand point, I definitely don't want him here. It will cost $$$ to get him over here, it will cost a fortune for a trial, and about 60-70K a year to house his butt in jail once he's Bubba Bait. That comes out of my pocket. So UK please just handle it.

cheers

Hey Relyt ,

Quote:

---

From a financial stand point, I definitely don't want him here. It will cost $$$ to get him over here, it will cost a fortune for a trial, and about 60-70K a year to house his butt in jail once he's Bubba Bait

---

Correct, apart from the politics, there is a big financial issue. The cost and lack of evidence is what stopped the British CPS going ahead in the first instance.

The US claims for "costs" would be ripped to shreds in minutes in a British appeal court. Trust me, I know just how difficult it is to prove consequential loss/damages even in a civil case. That is why they generally degenerate into back room dealings between insurance companies ;)

Now, we get to the nitty gritty.................$700,000? not to mention other different figures that have been bandied around. The defence could (quite rightly) demand that the figure be audited. Naturally that would require auditors for the defence and auditors for the prosecution.

Double staffed at quadruple rate? and who gets to pay for that?

It would only take one bit of "creative accountancy" to be detected, and the whole house of cards would collapse.

The first move has to be for the USA to provide sufficient evidence for us to close the UK side of this issue?

Otherwise, perhaps George.W.Bush would like to bring a private prosecution under UK law, in his capacity of supreme commander in chief?

Please also consider this: Those sites were as open as a store front after a disaster.........looters are everywhere, and you catch a guy with a looted TV............... do you then charge him with stealing everything that was stolen in the town that day?

If this was a very competent person, it would only have been him; that could easily be proven, and the whole issue would have been resolved in 4 months, not 4 years ;)

Remember the american tourist that spraypainted some cars in Singapore (I think, it was years ago). Seems we didn't get a chance to extradite him. I also remember of a drunk diplomat who, in DC, was speeding all over God's creation, destroyed people's private property (off-roading in a Mercedes?), ended up running several off the road before plowing into another car, killing more than one of the occupants. What happened? We didn't get to do crap to him because of "Diplomatic Immunity" yet that tourist/student/whatever gets publicly caned.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nihil
Hey Relyt ,

...the whole issue would have been resolved in 4 months, not 4 years ;)

---

Hey Nihil,

Amen! If we had an offense in the way back then, then seems to me that a "speedy trial" would have proved benefical. However to spend money out of my pocket to fly his stinky arse over here, really fires me up. It is pure stupidity on our part to be so concerned about it now - 4 years later. What possible value would it serve to spend a ton of money on a trial etc., for something that no longer applies. Any damage caused by his viewing etc., has long since been abated. Would a trial act as a deterent to future deviants. No. Has it ever? But we can be assured that they will always attempt to break in. Do with him what the UK wants.

cheers

Hmmmm,

Our authorities certainly need to get together and work out a mechanism for enforcing these laws that they have agreed to. That certainly seems to have been lacking?

If the US provide the UK with the evidence then we can wrap up our end of things. That would leave the US offences to be dealt with, but the guy would presumably plea bargain and that would minimise the costs?

The real problem would seem to be that the security was so lax it will be hard to actually prove who did what damage.

:)

EDIT: It looks like you guys are going to have to pay? I cannot even submit tax returns right now :eek:

And our version of the IRS' helpdesk is choked with people complaining that they cannot file their tax returns..............I hope someone else finds that as amusing as I do :D

this doesn't surprise me , anyone with half a brain involved in some area of computers has known for years that government computer networks are insecure ,most times the door into the networks is thru something as harmless as us navys personnel server ,the systems that are in everyday use cant be secured in the way they ought to be because the higher up admirals and generals order the security officers to lax security restrictions because they cant be bothered to remember passwords and user names , i saw a bit of it in my time in the marine corps