The Conservative Party has championed the case of Gary McKinnon, the self-confessed Nasa hacker, in an opposition day debate in parliament.
On Wednesday, the Conservatives called for the extradition treaty between the UK and the US to be reviewed to avoid injustice to those accused, citing the case of McKinnon (pictured) as an example.
Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said that in cases such as McKinnon's, which could be tried in two jurisdictions, the UK "appears to be subcontracting justice to other countries" by opting not to prosecute at home.
McKinnon, who has been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, faces extradition to the US for what prosecutors there have described as "the biggest military hack of all time".
The London resident is accused by American prosecutors of causing $700,000 (£400,000) in damage to US military systems, a charge that he denies. McKinnon has admitted breaking into Nasa and other US agency systems, but he claims he was looking for evidence of UFOs.
In the debate, Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs argued that the UK-US extradition treaty is unbalanced, as it is non-reciprocal. The US does not have to provide prima facie evidence of wrongdoing to request an extradition, whereas UK authorities must provide probable cause to the US.
Backbencher Kate Hoey was among the Labour MPs who supported a review of the UK-US arrangement, saying it is "not working in terms of natural justice".
"When will we change [the treaty] so we won't get a ridiculous situation the public just won't accept, as with Gary McKinnon?" said Hoey.
However, home secretary Alan Johnson told parliament that the current government will not respond to the calls for change. "A case has not been made to review the extradition act," he said. "The 2003 act has simplified extradition procedures while being instrumental in bringing criminals to justice."
Johnson added that he could not aid McKinnon's efforts to avoid extradition. "The home secretary is legally obliged to order extradition except where there is a possibility that the person could be sentenced to death, where there are inadequate arrangements, or if the person to be extradited has previously been extradited from another country," said Johnson.
Autism experts and McKinnon's legal team contend that the Briton will be at risk of serious psychological difficulties and suicide if he is taken to the US and away from his family.
McKinnon's MP David Burrowes, who is also the shadow minister for justice, said in the debate that "those that have special needs often do not get the justice they deserve."
"We are concerned with justice for the innocent, as well as for the guilty," said Burrowes. "There needs to be justice for all, which there hasn't been in the case of Gary McKinnon."
McKinnon has been going through a legal process in the UK for seven years. Currently, two high-court judges are reviewing whether former home secretary Jacqui Smith was right to turn down McKinnon's second appeal for clemency, and are considering arguments from McKinnon's defence team that the director of public prosecutions was wrong not to prosecute McKinnon in the UK.
Talkback
Labour made this a whipped vote and consequently carried the day.
Parliament, under such public scrutiny just now, is still a bloody disgrace. Parliamentary shinnanigans before the genuine interests of the country and the people.
The treaty, as is, should be voided. No question.
Really won't matter who we vote for. It'll still be a Punch and Judy show. Paliament has a long way to go, if willing, to regain the trust and respect of the country. Yesterday's 'Questions to the Prime Minister' speaks volumes about what is wrong, and integrity, or the lack thereof, is high on the list.
To face his accusers, this is not about US vs UK, its about right and wrong. He knew what he was doing, he hacked into military and NASA computers looking for something. He had full knowlegde of what he was doing and HE chose to do it. Do I feel bad about what this has done to his family, yes, do I feel bad he has a medical condition, yes, do I feel bad that if he goes to jail he will be very far from his family, yes. He should of thought about all of this before he commited the crime. He did this to himself and his family, not the US.
The US is seeking justice. In the beginning the US showed him mercy by the plea deal it gave, by turning it down and fighting extradition he gave the US prosecutors no choice but to go after him.
I am sure many UK citizens will disagree with me and thats fine, but I can say with a 100% certainty that if a US citizen hacked the UK's military, the US would hand him over to be tried.
If the situation were reversed and this was a US Citizen with the US Authorities refusing to extradite him, then the British media would have an absolute field day and justifiably so.
He has already admitted he knew he should not have been doing it, time to accept the consequences.
Extradition for trial in the US is the only right option, presumably there would be an option to serve any subsequent prison sentence in a UK jail should he be found guilty.
The American Constitution prevents this. America has NOT adopted any legislation to ratify the relevant treaty with UK. Consequently, America has to go through rigorous due process as opposed to the untested assertions made against Gary McKinnon, particularly the scale and cost of damage done.
A one sided Treaty should be voided and America should present it's case for extradition through the UK courts where the evidence can be challenged for probity.
"The American Constitution prevents this." It doesn't for a foreign national on foreign soil.
"Consequently, America has to go through rigorous due process as opposed to the untested assertions made against Gary McKinnon, particularly the scale and cost of damage done." Due Process is in our Constitution. I agree that the treaty might not be fair but such as life, if thats the case your parliment needs to change it or invalidate it. Right now American prosecutors are following the law, it isn't even that he says he is innocent and that they got the wrong guy. McKinnon admitted that he did it, I saw a interview with him saying that he did it, he is trying to get off on a technicality. He knows in America what he did is a felony, compared to the UK's Misdemeanor charge. Of course he wants to be tried in the UK, who wouldn't.
"presumably there would be an option to serve any subsequent prison sentence in a UK jail should he be found guilty." I agree, since he is a UK citizen, he should serve his time there.
Gary McKinnon has not only not admitted to the scale of the damage done and the cost thereof, he has specifically denied it. Wild accusations of the damage done and costs have been has published here, hence our lack of trust in a fair outcome for a rather foolish individual, who it turns out might be handicapped.
The weakness of NASA security was highlighted as a result of his interest in 'Extra Terrestrials', using rather basic (unsophisticated) hacking methods.
"Yes but Gary McKinnon has not only not admitted to the scale of the damage done and the cost thereof, he has specifically denied it." I would deny it to, as it stands "Under the US indictment, Mr McKinnon is charged with hacking into Army computers in nearly 20 military and six Nasa facilities, installing software, deleting thousands of files and copying account information." I understand what you are saying but right now its the US Governments word against His Word, he who has already admitted that he hacked into the US Governemnts systems, how do we know, maybe he did it accidently and he really believes he didnt, maybe the US Government is blowing smoke, if only we had some way to know the truth, like a guy sitting on a bench, hearing both sides of the argument and handing out a fair ruling. The Judge should reside in the area that the crime took place in he would after all have jurisdiction, like Virginia. Right now the US Goverment might be blowing smoke, on the other hand they might not be, I don't know I havent seen the evidence but I can tell you in court the US Government will have to back up their accusations.
"The weakness of NASA security was highlighted as a result of his interest in 'Extra Terrestrials', using rather basic (unsophisticated) hacking methods." This is true, NASA and the Army should be very embarrassed over how easy it was for him however if you leave your house unlocked does that mean I can come in and eat your food? After all you left it with weakened security?
"he did admit leaving a diatribe on one computer: US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days... It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year... I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels."
A quote from him, so he admitted he was in favor over what happened on 9/11, and he will continue to distrupt the US Governments network.
I am sorry he knew exactly what he was doing, I dont think he realized the US could or would come after him. That quote is more then the act of a foolish man.
I know him; I know what he did; I know what he didn't do.
First he didn't steal passwords there were none...there was no security... no pass words.. no firewalls on thousands of computers on the networks.
Finacial damage is a legal requirement before an indictment can be made and the threshold is $5000. Magically he is supposed to have caused exactly $5000 damage on each of the systems (my, my what a coincidence)
He also left many many notes telling the systems administrators that their security was crap but of course those aren't mentioned only the one about "no coincidence there was a standown on 911"
He was with me when the towers collapsed. He was just as shocked and horrified and appalled as the rest of the world. But he wondered why no helicopters were rescuing the survivors, he wondered why the third building, (you know, the one that contained the details of congressional investigations into the whitehouse) collapsed on its own without the help of an aeroplane, and he wondered why, when FAA protocol calls for fighter planes to investigate any civillian plane that strays from its
flightpath for 5 mins that these planes were allowed to be off course for upto 90 minutes! he believed, as does 700 architects 300 military people and 200 politicians and half the planet that 911 was an inside job.
you, my friend, should start opening your eyes and you might glimpse the real criminals
Yeah Right!
"First he didn't steal passwords there were none...there was no security... no pass words.. no firewalls on thousands of computers on the networks. Finacial damage is a legal requirement before an indictment can be made and the threshold is $5000. Magically he is supposed to have caused exactly $5000 damage on each of the systems (my, my what a coincidence)" If you are right then the court will throw out the case against him. If he truly got on completely open systems and no hacking took place at all (not even running scripts to find the computers with the weakest security on the networks) then their is no case. He should come to the US and clear his name then, prove to the world he was right. His actions are one of a guilty man though.
This is how we look at it. 1st he admitted doing it, he admitted to unauthorized computer use, second lets take a look at how he got caught. he miscalculated the timezone and remotely accessed the PC while the user was at it. My question is this why would he have to calculate the timezone at all? if he didnt believe he was doing something wrong why would he care if he got caught?
3rd even after 8 years, 911 is still a very touchy subject for most Americans, i myself lost two people I knew. I will admit that I was outraged when I saw that message, now that its the following morning and I had time to think it through it doesnt bother me as much however the message he left could easily be intrepreted that he was in favor of 9/11 and that he will continue to carry on the fight. I will not even discuss the Conspirarcy theory around 9/11. For everything their is a Conspirarcy theory on.
US and Russia don't extradite their citizens. I think we should take the same approach , he should be trialed here.
Also the UK has a policy (i think we are signed up to it as international law) not to deport or extradite someone to a country with the death penalty.
I remember there was a 16 year old kid in the UK about 10 years that did the same thing, the news was hardly covered, no extradition etc.
The fact is there are real terrorist and murderers out there that cant be extradited, why aren't we worrying about that??
they were windows boxes with no administrative passwords.
I actually think it may have been the old remote desktop problem allowing remote desktop accounts that dont have passwords (which is now fixed).
As for the damages i wonder if that's the cost of fixing these shameful security lapses
Apparently he even spoke to a staff member by typing in notpad via a remote desktop session. Why wasn't that reported ???
"US and Russia don't extradite their citizens." The US does extradite their citizens, here is a story right here, (first thing to come up in google) http://vilnius.usembassy.gov/05-27-04.html. Did you actually think the US does not extradite their own or did you just say that to make your argument have more validity?
"I think we should take the same approach , he should be trialed here." Of course the UK thinks that, what is the top crime he can be charge with there? Computer misuse, which is a misdemenour offense with punishment of community service, In the US its a felony. Tell me whats to stop his lawyers if he was tried in the UK to say that UK has no jurisdiction since after all the computers he broke into are in the US. Case dismissed. He should be tried where he commited the crime.
"I remember there was a 16 year old kid in the UK about 10 years that did the same thing, the news was hardly covered, no extradition etc." Probably because the 16 year old kid didnt say that he was in favor of 9/11 and he would continue to disrupt the US military networks at the highest levels.
"The fact is there are real terrorist and murderers out there that cant be extradited, why aren't we worrying about that??" The US see's him as a cyberterrorist, and we do worry about that.
US no been sarcastic and Russia true
"He should be tried where he commited the crime. "
Which actually technically is on British soil from what you just said
"didnt say that he was in favor of 9/11 "
Gary McKinnon was in favour of 9/11?... thats total BS
I agree what he done is wrong and he should be punished just not in the US.
>The US see's him as a cyberterrorist, and we do worry about that.
How is he a cyberterrorist? his intent wasn't to be disruptive, he didnt intend to be noticed in the first place.
You do know that countries such as China and Russia steal your information on a daily bases as does the UK and US from other countries ... and each other..............its a joke!!!!
""He should be tried where he commited the crime. "
"Which actually technically is on British soil from what you just said" No Technically the computers he got into were on American Soil.
""didnt say that he was in favor of 9/11 "
Gary McKinnon was in favour of 9/11?... thats total BS" Really? ok maybe since I don't speak the Queens English, maybe I am misunderstanding, he left a note on a military computer system saying "US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days... It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year... I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels." It appears to me that what he is saying that 9/11 was not a mistake and that he is solo and he will continue to disrupt at the highest levels, am I misunderstanding? Those are not the words of someone looking to see if ET is real.
"I agree what he done is wrong and he should be punished just not in the US." He should be tried here, since we have jurisdiction, tell me if he was tried there what prevents his lawyer from saying that the computers he got into are on American soil and that Uk courts have no jurisdiction there? Lets just stay for a minute that his lawyers didnt say that, what is he looking at in the UK, community service? Gee I wonder why he wants to be tried in the UK.
">The US see's him as a cyberterrorist, and we do worry about that.
How is he a cyberterrorist? (read my comment about 9/11) his intent wasn't to be disruptive, he didnt intend to be noticed in the first place." If his intent was not to be disruptive and not noticed then tell me why did he leave notes on the computers he got into and why did he take remote control of a PC while someone was sitting at it? He wrote files (notes) to military computer systems, we should take his word that he didnt do any damage? Really? He has already admitted to leaving notes on the systems, could he of also overwrote some files even accidently?
The last plea deal offered was only 6 months in a low security white collar jail. That was America showing compassion. Justice Department officials charge that he compromised and deleted records at a key naval-operations center in New Jersey and repeatedly crashed systems belonging to NASA and the Pentagon. McKinnon claims he was snooping for evidence of a UFO cover-up by the U.S. government. Do you think that while he was snooping he might of accidently crash the computers??
“No Technically the computers he got into were on American Soil.”
But the crime was committed on British soil, at a keyboard
“S foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days... It” ….etc..
“Those are not the words of someone looking to see if ET is real.”
The guy is into conspiracies (classic aspergers) in general !!! he also made references to looking for evidence regarding the US government carrying out 9/11 as a conspiracy ….. new world order and all that…. If he was a terrorist why was he trying to find evidence at would expose the US government in carry out such acts against there own people.
(which I don’t believe personally)
“I wonder why he wants to be tried in the UK.”
Your senators have been noted in saying that they “want him to fry” .. UK has a policy which I already outlined. The UK would be breaking international law in sending him to the US facing that.
“why did he take remote control of a PC while someone was sitting at it”
He cocked up his time zones.. as stated
“notes on the computers”
Other that chatting to a cleaner , I have yet to see reliable proof… could be laying stuff on him.
“could he of also overwrote some files even accidently?”
I doubt seriously doubt .. create new file , edit old one….. common … your in IT its not a easy mistake.. to make.
“accidently crash the computers??”
Using RDP I doubt it …. Yet it is windows ;-)
“repeatedly crashed systems belonging to NASA and the Pentagon.”
If they cant even patch a well known RDP issue (allowing remote access without a password).. I don’t hold much hope in them maintaining a stable boxes.
Gary McKinnon adnitted computer misuse but has always denied the alleged damage and very recent disclosure in court by the Crown Prosecution Service shows that the U.S have no evidence whatsoever of the alleged damage.
Submsissions by the U.S are marked by the CPS lawyer as "No Evidence" and Hearsay.
So you are wrong. Gary McKinnon has never admitted to damage and in March 2002 when the crime was committed, without damage it was not an extraditable nor a Federal offence.
This is why the U.S cynically waited until June 2005 until the U.K started using the one sided treaty and the U.S was now no longer required to provide any evidence in order to extradite any U.K citizen.
If we want to extradite an American, we have to provide evidence.
This treaty was to be used for terrorists, so where are the terrorists? Can't the U.S find any?
The U.S is currently trying to extradite Ian Norris for price fixing. Norris is a 66 year old man with cancer and despite the House of Lords clearing Norris of price fixing as it was not a crime in the U.K at that time, the U.S are still trying to extradite him for a related offence of the crime that never was.
The U.S are trying to extradite British Airways Execs.
So Where are the Terrorists.
""No Technically the computers he got into were on American Soil.”
But the crime was committed on British soil, at a keyboard"
This is a grey area, i see your point but we look at it as simply this, once he ran the perl script and used that information to find what computers had no passwords, he was breaking and entering. He commited the crime the second he entered US Government computer systems without permission looking for classified military data. The Goverment computers were on US soil. He logged into them so he entered them. We look at it as someone who is walking down a row of houses checking the door locks to see if he can find a door that is unlocked. If that was your house would that be ok, could I enter your house and look thru your personal information, after all you left your house open.
"If he was a terrorist why was he trying to find evidence at would expose the US government in carry out such acts against there own people." hmm misinformation maybe?? trying to blackmail the American Government? Who knows how a terrorist thinks.
"Your senators have been noted in saying that they “want him to fry” .. UK has a policy which I already outlined. The UK would be breaking international law in sending him to the US facing that." That would be a problem if he was facing the senate or the death penalty, he is facing a Federal court not the senate, two completely different branches of Government. In federal court he would face the death penalty only if he killed a US citizen, or if he was a US citizen selling our secrets to other countries or if he commited treason against the US. Since he is not a US citizien and he hasn't done those things (although one might make a case for Espionage, however we are just taking his word that he was looking for UFO's and was not spying) he has nothing to worry about then from the death penalty.
"“why did he take remote control of a PC while someone was sitting at it” He cocked up his time zones.. as stated" Good point but why would he worry about time zones if he didnt know he was breaking the law or doing something wrong?
“notes on the computers”
Other that chatting to a cleaner , I have yet to see reliable proof… could be laying stuff on him." He admitted to leaving notes even the one about 9/11. What more proof do you need?
“could he of also overwrote some files even accidently?”
I doubt seriously doubt .. create new file , edit old one….. common … your in IT its not a easy mistake.. to make." My teachers do it all the time, I am constantly having to pull data from backup, and if he was trying to cover his tracks then...
"“accidently crash the computers??”
Using RDP I doubt it …. Yet it is windows ;-)" LOL good point but its possible right?
“repeatedly crashed systems belonging to NASA and the Pentagon.”
If they cant even patch a well known RDP issue (allowing remote access without a password).. I don’t hold much hope in them maintaining a stable boxes." True but maybe his intrustion was causing it to crash.
"Gary McKinnon adnitted computer misuse but has always denied the alleged damage and very recent disclosure in court by the Crown Prosecution Service shows that the U.S have no evidence whatsoever of the alleged damage.
Submsissions by the U.S are marked by the CPS lawyer as "No Evidence" and Hearsay." Of course, US prosecuters are not going to lay out their case until they have to and right now because of the extradition treaty they dont have to. Does not mean they do not have any evidence just means they are not going to tell anyone about it until they are in court.
"So you are wrong." I do not think so but I do leave the possibility open that the US prosecutors are blowing smoke, If only we had a way to resolve this, like someone sitting on a bench handing out fair rulings based on evidence and the truth, that someone would need to be in a location that has jurisdiction to hear the case. Yep if only we had a system like that, oh wait....
"Gary McKinnon has never admitted to damage and in March 2002 when the crime was committed, without damage it was not an extraditable nor a Federal offence." I see so we should just take his word right?
"This is why the U.S cynically waited until June 2005 until the U.K started using the one sided treaty and the U.S was now no longer required to provide any evidence in order to extradite any U.K citizen. If we want to extradite an American, we have to provide evidence." Ahh.. the treaty is unfair argument, Could the reason also be that the US waited was because the UK decided not to press charges against him for even the computer misuse crime?? Could that have something to do with the US seeking justice for a crime that the UK was not going to charge him with? The UK just let him go scott free? Could that have something to do with that reason?
"This treaty was to be used for terrorists, so where are the terrorists? Can't the U.S find any?" Cyberterrorist maybe?
The U.S is currently trying to extradite Ian Norris for price fixing. Norris is a 66 year old man with cancer and despite the House of Lords clearing Norris of price fixing as it was not a crime in the U.K at that time, the U.S are still trying to extradite him for a related offence of the crime that never was." If he caused price fixing in the US a crime that was on the books then the US should extradite him. "The U.S are trying to extradite British Airways Execs." Thankyou for bringing this up and here I thought after listening to his mother saying how unfair it was that the US was picking on him and that NO one else was being extradided and how unfair that was, and here I thought the same thing, wow thankyou for changing my mind that the US is not picking on him and are extraditing other people.
"So Where are the Terrorists." a alleged Cyberterrorist that supposedly caused damage to US government and US military computer systems, who left a note on a computer system saying 9/11 was no accident and he is SOLO and he will continue to disrupt at the highest levels. Notice he said continue like he was continueing to disrupt the US Government systems. Are these the words of someone looking for ET? I do not know about you but...
You DO know what Aspergers is, I take it? The man is chronically fixated on fantasies and lives in his own world, no disrespect to sufferers. I have a son with autism, and whilst he knows right from wrong, and seems to most people to be completely fine, his mind is seriously compromised.
Why has this point been consistently ignored? Even if this chap is now backtracking a little on his story, that's only natural - I can fully understand his wishing to get off a little lighter by conveniently 'forgetting' a few silly notes he left on a system whilst claiming the real purpose was UFO research - which I've no doubt it was, amongst other conspiracy theories.
Wouldn't you try to forget these daft references to 9/11 knowing the way the US reacts to this topic? Knowing he will be branded a cyberterrorist for a few moments' silly lapses of common sense? Bearing in mind that common sense does not really figure in people with autism!
The key fact is that the guy is 'handicapped', as you guys in the US still refer to mental disability as. For crying out loud, nothing else really matters, though excellent points about the one-sided treaty have been made.
To answer one of your first points - yes, the US does extradite - very occasionally - but were this 'crime' committed by a US citizen obsessed with, say, the UK MoD's 'cover up' of UFOs, or even the tube bombings, I do doubt that the US would willingly extradite on the same level of proof offered in this particular case.
On Simula posts regarding this topic the US have not one constructive argument, and NoThomas your greatly misinterpreting that quote.
"You DO know what Aspergers is, I take it? The man is chronically fixated on fantasies and lives in his own world, no disrespect to sufferers. I have a son with autism, and whilst he knows right from wrong, and seems to most people to be completely fine, his mind is seriously compromised." I know what it is, do I think he should get a free pass because he has it though? No I do not.
"Why has this point been consistently ignored?" It has not been ignored, but the US does not give free passes with people that have it. Take a look at this story: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/truckers
We gave him a lighter sentence but he still has to pay for his crimes.
"Even if this chap is now backtracking a little on his story, that's only natural - I can fully understand his wishing to get off a little lighter by conveniently 'forgetting' a few silly notes he left on a system whilst claiming the real purpose was UFO research - which I've no doubt it was, amongst other conspiracy theories." Which brings his honesty into question, how do we know now that he was looking for UFO's?
"The key fact is that the guy is 'handicapped', as you guys in the US still refer to mental disability as." No we don't and you called him that not me.
For crying out loud, nothing else really matters, though excellent points about the one-sided treaty have been made."
Yes other things do matter. We take Aspergers into consideration, tell me does he know right from wrong? Why do you think Aspergers gives him a free pass?
"To answer one of your first points - yes, the US does extradite - very occasionally - but were this 'crime' committed by a US citizen obsessed with, say, the UK MoD's 'cover up' of UFOs, or even the tube bombings, I do doubt that the US would willingly extradite on the same level of proof offered in this particular case."
Really? He admitted to doing it, he is not denying the crime only how much money he caused in damages. Yes the US would extradite a citizen if he admitted to the crime, in a heart beat.
If he was claiming innocence then I think you would be right. The US should show cause and evidence before uprooting someone. However he is not denying breaking into the US computer systems and leaving messages.
"US have not one constructive argument" Please, of course they do.
"NoThomas your greatly misinterpreting that quote" Ok maybe I am , I can admit when I am wrong, please explain it to me. We do after all speak two different versions of English, maybe I am misinterpreting it. Tell me what did he mean by saying "US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days...It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year..."
So he is saying that 911 was not a mistake?
"I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels."
He is saying he is SOLO and he will continue to distupt the US networks and cause disruptions at the highest levels?
You wonder why the US might want him in jail to maybe stop him from continueing to disrupt their networks, especially since the UK will not will not tell him to stop or even prosecute him for the computer misuse crime.
"US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days...It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year..."
So he is saying that 911 was not a mistake?
Basically he is saying that what happened that day was more or less an inside job, giving the way that things unfolded before us as we watched it happen.
ie; police officers running around telling people the buildings where coming down before they actually showed any signs of doing so, while fire fighters where still inside.
The lack of airlifting of any sort from the rooftops before collapse.
Workers who worked in that block told to have that day off beforehand.
George W bush's brother's business held the security contract for both the main towers until the day before the event transpired.
Two weeks before the event happened office workers where given a set period of time off from both buildings, Georges brother's security firm removed all the sniffer dogs out of the buildings, whilst at the same time allowing "Teams of structural engineers" on to the both premises carry large satchels with them, apparently to carry out some important work.
Not six months before that day the business man who had purchased that business district that encompassed several buildings including the two towers, had a insurance re-valuation carried out by Loyd's bank of London and subsequently a new policy drawn up to the value of six hundred million dollar's or sterling, baring in mind each of the tower's where only worth one hundred million each.
The FBI had an office block within that square that held important data in there systems pertaining to an ongoing investigation concerning an electoral defrauding case, but by the end of that day that building had also being flattened along with any case information with it.
Various news broadcasters saying that the seventh building had collapsed when it was still clearly visible behind the reporter, and then the live transmission was abruptly terminated.
I dare say they is probably more but not to rabbit on to much.
"I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels."
He is saying he is SOLO and he will continue to distupt the US networks and cause disruptions at the highest levels?
Giving he's belief into the events that shocked us all that day its fair to say he is some what angered by the US establishment, because he believes that some of them had something to do with the murder of innocent people for there own political and financial gains.
As for him causing disruption's thats no doubt aimed at those he thinks are responsible for that event, and not aimed at the common man as it where.
I could see where maybe he was talking about a conspiracy theory about 911 and not talking about 911 itself. I can see where thats valid. He sure did come across wrong.
I will not debate the conspirary theory though other then to say, I see evidence but I also see evidence the other way. George W Bush was not a popular President by any means and was generally hated by the US liberal media. Do you really think that if any of this were true that the media would let it go? If they could pin this to the Bushes family and make America see that it was them and not Bin Laden that the media would trip over themselves to report it.
Yeah without yabbing on to much I'm pretty much like yourself I think there's a lot more to the bigger picture with regards to the administration of that time, it was a big political circle so its difficult to point the finger.
Regarding Gary lets not forget that he acted in a time frame not to distant from the actual event, and he may well have come across some information from those systems that provoked a reaction not only from himself but others, especially given the fact that this information was not as commonly available as it is now.
Hmmm. Well, in Wikipedia, first off, I've given up arguing against the US-based editors who insist the correct phrase for mental disability is 'retardation', 'handicap' etc, but perhaps these are not the norm in the US?
As for the favourite phrase of yours, 'free pass', you do not seem to appreciate the point. A person can indeed admit to wrongdoing, and yet not meet the criterion for culpability due to mental disability. You do not *and I am not being inflammatory) seem to understand the basic point of culpability under the law, as regards those with diminished levels of responsibility.
On this point (and this may be a little inflammatory, but it is nevertheless true) the US has a long history of punishing 'in extremis' people who in other jurisdictions would have been assessed as not meeting the criterion of full culpability.
"Hmmm. Well, in Wikipedia, first off, I've given up arguing against the US-based editors who insist the correct phrase for mental disability is 'retardation', 'handicap' etc, but perhaps these are not the norm in the US?"
It depends, it depends on what part of the US you are in and who you ask. For someone with his medical condition we say he has a mental condition, not mental retardation.
"As for the favourite phrase of yours, 'free pass', you do not seem to appreciate the point. A person can indeed admit to wrongdoing, and yet not meet the criterion for culpability due to mental disability. You do not *and I am not being inflammatory) seem to understand the basic point of culpability under the law, as regards those with diminished levels of responsibility."
I do see the point, but I see a bigger picture. Is your point that since he has Asperger's he is not culpable under the law? Tell me, what laws would he be held under? What laws would you charge him with? If he broke into someones house would you say that he has a mental disability and he is not culpable under the law? He broke into the US's property and that is what you are saying. My point is where do you draw the line?
Here is the one point that bothers me, One of the ways that he got caught was because he took remote control of someones workstation, when asked about it he says he got the time zones mixed up and was unaware that someone would be at the workstation at that time. If did not know what he was doing was wrong and if he was unaware of it then why would he care about the timezones? Why did he calculate them to figure out when no one would be there?
"On this point (and this may be a little inflammatory, but it is nevertheless true) the US has a long history of punishing 'in extremis' people who in other jurisdictions would have been assessed as not meeting the criterion of full culpability."
Different countries have different criteria by US law he is culpable. The US is going after him full force now not because it wanted to, but because it has to. The US offered him a plea bargain of 6 months at a minumum security jail. This jail is for white collar criminals with golf courses and such. This is not a maximum security prison.
By the way I know Latin I do not think Asperger's is grave or exceptional. Atleast not in this context.
I try to keep an open mind but I have not heard a argument that sways me. The treaty argument does not because its the law of the land. The "US is picking on him argument does not because we are also trying to extradite other people as someone else pointed out to me. His mental disability does not because he is a computer programmer and he showed intent, he had that much of a peice of mind. Him killing himself argument does not because frankly their are alot of people not wanting to be there, frankly I would be thinking that if I were to go to jail. If he saying he was innocent and he did not do this then you would be right the US should show evidence before he is extradited, but he admitted to doing it. The truly bad part of this whole thing is the US has double jeopardy laws, what that means is simply that the US cannot charge someone with a crime twice. If the UK would of charged him with even the "computer misuse" crime then one could make a argument for double jeopardy but the UK refused to charge him.
I will end by saying that I did not take your comments as inflammatory and I hope you do not take mine that way. You are expressing your points and arguments as I am. I love yall Brits, I even enjoy watching C-Span when the Prime Ministor is on and your House of Commons is asking him questions. Please if you think I am wrong and have a argument then please let me know.
"Regarding Gary lets not forget that he acted in a time frame not to distant from the actual event, and he may well have come across some information from those systems that provoked a reaction not only from himself but others, especially given the fact that this information was not as commonly available as it is now."
I will say maybe, but it still does not excuse his actions of breaking into the systems in the first place.
I'd guess then we simply differ as to what 'culpability' should mean. In some jurisdictions, it is felt that a mental condition that causes compulsive behaviour must by law reduce the level of criminal culpability. The key point being that the person is, to a degree, unable to resist the compulsion (but not in the same way as a naughty boy who just can't help himself).
The reduced culpability argument is not there to excuse ill-judged, illegal behaviour - autism (and I have to express an interest here, one of my sons is severely autistic) is a mental disability. Its effects range from total inability to judge right from wrong (not the case here I hasten to add!) to severe compulsive behaviour. And all types of the disease appear to be caused by neurological damage (though no root cause has been determined, it is just too complex an issue).
So I do get a bit upset when I think people miss the point about autistic behaviour - it is not a 'get out of jail free' excuse, it is related to the sort of compulsive begaviour you can also see with physical brain damage - should we always punish such people to the full extent of the law?
Your points are all well-made. The plea-bargain issue is tricky; neither you nor I would find it a hardship, it's true. But another symptom of autism is that sufferers fixate on their surroundings; any change to routine, no matter how small (they wash hands compulsively a certain number of times, as OCD is strongly indicated in many cases) results in utter panic. To change environments utterly - that is, to find oneself in a different country, let alone a secure facility of some kind - would in many sufferers cause the kind of panic most people only feel when under imminent threat of harm. I think his lawyers and doctors felt that he was under severe risk of self-harm, which is why they refused the plea bargain on his behalf. Personally I am extremely worried that he will try to kill himself - I have seen this sort of behaviour first-hand and know it is not staged 'for effect'!
On the whole the US sometimes gets a hard press, so apologies if I seemed to be joining in. I only become involved with these discussions (as most people do) when I perceive that an unfairness has occurred. And at the end of the day, if Mr McKinnon is a total fraud, I have been made a monkey out of. But if not, I do hope sufferers like him are better understood in future.
The Asperger's Syndrome kicks in.
"I'd guess then we simply differ as to what 'culpability' should mean. In some jurisdictions, it is felt that a mental condition that causes compulsive behaviour must by law reduce the level of criminal culpability. The key point being that the person is, to a degree, unable to resist the compulsion (but not in the same way as a naughty boy who just can't help himself)." I agree maybe our definitions are different, I see it as the US took it into consideration so we were willing to reduce the charge and the sentence, we were also willing to reduce the prison to a minumum security. That was us reducing the level of criminal culpability. Is your point different then this? I guess what I am really asking is simply this, if were a danger to himself or to others would it be ok to lock him up?
"So I do get a bit upset when I think people miss the point about autistic behaviour - it is not a 'get out of jail free' excuse, it is related to the sort of compulsive begaviour you can also see with physical brain damage - should we always punish such people to the full extent of the law?" No we should not, I agree that is why a 6 month sentence was offered. That is also why the lighter sentence was offered in the other case that I sent you the link of.
"Personally I am extremely worried that he will try to kill himself " I am to but even a man without a mental condition might when facing the prospect of jail time.
"On the whole the US sometimes gets a hard press, so apologies if I seemed to be joining in." No apologies, sometimes its deserved.
"I only become involved with these discussions (as most people do) when I perceive that an unfairness has occurred." Me to.
"And at the end of the day, if Mr McKinnon is a total fraud, I have been made a monkey out of. But if not, I do hope sufferers like him are better understood in future." My argument was never if he was 'faking it' my argument was that he needs to face the consequences of his actions. I would of been happy if he was charged with the computer misuse charge and was sentenced to community service. Like you I also hope people are better understood in the future.
All arguments aside it comes down to really this, The US wants Justice. The US waited but The UK was unwilling to charge him with a crime. The US does have a heart so we offered alot lighter of a charge and sentence he refused it. He called the US's hand, Now the US has to go after him. If we let it drop whats to prevent someone even you from hacking the US's military network then saying you have a medical condition and you should go without punishment, or you should not be extradited because the treaty is unfair? Is that justice?
Thanks for the response. I think you have to protect your infrastructure at all costs. But I worry about some disabled guy being used as a scapegoat. Fair enough, he was offered a deal which his lawyers refused (I imagine they consulted him though). I do understand that. I also do believe a compassionate (and brave) step would be to drop the extradition attempt, or even change the charge to such that he has to work some long community hours in the UK - he is not a crim at heart, certainly not a terrorist (which seems to be the thrust of the argument).
Wanting to avoid jail time, either here or the US, isn't really the issue. Autism sufferers really are at serious risk of self harm - it's not some ploy to get off, it's brain malfunction causing serious behavioural problems.
I feel the US is in a hard spot here. The conservatives would absolutely do their nut if further leniency was shown to a misguided fool with a fixation, because the targets involved were key institutions. It is a difficult problem.