Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I don't know what the possibilities are if he ends up going to the US and if he is found guilty.
    Based on his aspergers the judge might not put him in a mainstream prison or maybe he will, the risk is there though.
    It is, and seeing how this treaty is starting to be used more leniently than it was originally intended, I would not rule out McKinnon being sent to a supermax prison for just desserts. He would probably die in one of those.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Exactly - unless you specify an admin password, it's blank.

    Arhh right, thank you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    He should be punished - the law shouldn't be bent or undermined

    but not as harsh as 60 years

    maybe 6-24 months
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick_000)
    Am I the only one who doesn't buy the whole "ill man looking for UFO's" story he and his family are trying to show?

    "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" - This is one message he allegedly left.

    He is very intelligent and clearly knew what he was doing? Yes, the US is treating the case very severely but if you look at the damage he is alleged to have caused, isn't this understandable?

    Why the huge fuss from the media? If this had been a Muslim doing the same crime, I have no doubt he would have been labelled a terrorist.

    Someone explain?
    he's British in British soil.He should be judged under our law but the Liblabcons that made us a puppet state don't defend our citizens
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    He should be extradicted. He's clearly a criminal, has no defence to it and the Asperger's **** is a load of nonsense: he appears to be perfectly capable of standing trial, and his illness is not one which would usually present any bar to that.

    I may object to certain elements of the treaty, but I have no good reason for suggesting this case should be handled in any different fashion from what the law demands.

    (Original post by GoblinSoul)
    He didn't cause any damage what-so-ever. The alleged cost of his break-in was the money they used to see what he had damaged, which was non existent.
    Still, it's a large cost his actions incurred.

    (Original post by René Artois)
    Im sure the US government havent even provided evidence of the damage hes done, it just mysteriously totals the limit where its required to extradite him. Theyre just trying to make an example out of him, thats what people object to.
    It is for the courts to decide how he is punished, not the government. They are incapable of 'making an example' of him.

    The US has a free and well-developed judicial system. It is perfectly adequate for prosecuting him.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I hope they dont kill him and make it look like suicide or something.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by punktopia)
    Who cares? The law isn't beyond reform. There's a lot of stupid, stupid laws out there. Again - I think he should be rewarded, not punished. And the Americans should sort out their online security... allowing themselves to be humilated by a random guy with Asperger's... how embarrassing for them.
    Rewarded for breaking a law? Riiight, great idea that. The idea that someone who has aspergers or anything like it can escape a prison sentence merely because they have aspergers or anything like it is silly.

    It's not just a case on America sorting out it's security, it's a case of punishing someone for what they did. Whether it be in this country or the states.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    He should be extradicted. He's clearly a criminal, has no defence to it and the Asperger's **** is a load of nonsense: he appears to be perfectly capable of standing trial, and his illness is not one which would usually present any bar to that.

    I may object to certain elements of the treaty, but I have no good reason for suggesting this case should be handled in any different fashion from what the law demands.



    Still, it's a large cost his actions incurred.



    It is for the courts to decide how he is punished, not the government. They are incapable of 'making an example' of him.

    The US has a free and well-developed judicial system. It is perfectly adequate for prosecuting him.
    The breakdown of this "cost" has never been published and AFAIK, McKinnon and his legal team haven't seen it, either.

    It's all too convenient and I don't think the costs the US Government supposedly incurred are justified. My rationale for this can be found, here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=146
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)

    Over Over there he'd be put in a supermax prison with murderers and rapists for 70 years, with no support for his condition.
    That's how it should be like here!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Rewarded for breaking a law? Riiight, great idea that. The idea that someone who has aspergers or anything like it can escape a prison sentence merely because they have aspergers or anything like it is silly.

    It's not just a case on America sorting out it's security, it's a case of punishing someone for what they did. Whether it be in this country or the states.
    Did you have a particularly strict upbringing?
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by René Artois)
    Murderers dont threaten national security either. Theres always much more severe punishments for things like this, because the consequences will affect more people.
    And did this guy threaten national security? No he didn't. What he did was highlight that there was not enough secuirty to protect the US and their secrets. He wasn't a threat. The main people to blame for any risk to secuirty are those who set up these computer systems with terrible security for not doing their jobs correctl.y

    This is not to say that gary did no wrong, but he certainly was not a threat to US national secuirty and should be treated as a threat.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by punktopia)
    Did you have a particularly strict upbringing?
    :no: Nope.
    A normal upbringing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RK)
    And did this guy threaten national security? No he didn't. What he did was highlight that there was not enough secuirty to protect the US and their secrets. He wasn't a threat. The main people to blame for any risk to secuirty are those who set up these computer systems with terrible security for not doing their jobs correctl.y

    This is not to say that gary did no wrong, but he certainly was not a threat to US national secuirty and should be treated as a threat.
    Well yeah, he did. He could have had access to all sorts of things, all of which im sure would have been extrememely valuable for an enemy of the US.

    So what, anyone should be able to hack into a defence system now and claim theyre just testing their security?

    He exploited the bad security there, and had access to high level material.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by René Artois)
    Well yeah, he did. He could have had access to all sorts of things, all of which im sure would have been extrememely valuable for an enemy of the US.

    So what, anyone should be able to hack into a defence system now and claim theyre just testing their security?

    He exploited the bad security there, and had access to high level material.
    No one's contesting the point that he did hack in and should be punished. But is he really a threat to American national security? Did he have malicious intentions? I doubt he did have any malicious intentions as he left his email address behind. My concern is that they're not trying to make him the scapegoat for their own failings.

    Also, his Asperger's which has an affect on his intentions and motives, is being overlooked. It has also taken a very long time for them to charge him- the whole thing is dubious. That Extradition treaty was meant to be used for terrorists. Is he really a terrorist?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moroseblight)
    No one's contesting the point that he did hack in and should be punished. But is he really a threat to American national security? Did he have malicious intentions? I doubt he did have any malicious intentions as he left his email address behind. My concern is that they're not trying to make him the scapegoat for their own failings.

    Also, his Asperger's which has an affect on his intentions and motives, is being overlooked. It has also taken a very long time for them to charge him- the whole thing is dubious. That Extradition treaty was meant to be used for terrorists. Is he really a terrorist?
    Yes, anyone who hacks into NASA, Navy, Department of Defence and all the others he did is a threat. It doesnt matter what his intentions were, or what his motives were. He hacked into very sensitive areas and was a threat.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    Thought this might be of interest to people...

    A few weeks ago I wrote an email to the Home Office/Home Secretary about Gary McKinnon. What I said is not that important, but I got a reply back today. It's most probably a standard response emailed out to numerous people, but I thought I'd share it here for many of you to look at:



    Thank you for your e-mail of 02 August to the Home Secretary about a request from the USA for the extradition of Gary McKinnon. As I am sure you will appreciate, the Home Secretary receives a large number of letters and is unable to respond to each one individually. Therefore, your letter has been passed to the Direct Communications Unit and I have been asked to reply.

    It may be worth setting out first a brief summary of Mr McKinnon’s alleged offences. He stands accused in the United States of computer offences allegedly committed between February 2001 and March 2002. These involve the unauthorised access from his home computer in London - or “hacking” into some 97 US Army, Navy and NASA computers concerned with national defence, security and naval munitions supplies. Mr McKinnon is alleged to have deleted data, including vital operating system files – causing, amongst other things, the shutting down of the US Military District of Washington’s entire network of over 2000 computers and the rendering inoperable of certain computer systems at a critical period following 11 September 2001. The USA alleges that the conduct was both calculated and intentional; and it states the cost of necessary systems repairs as being $700,000. During interviews under caution, Mr McKinnon admitted responsibility for certain of his alleged actions (although not that he had actually caused damage). He stated that his targets were high level US Army, Navy and Air Force computers and that his ultimate goal was to gain access to the US military classified information network. He also admitted leaving a note on one army computer reading:
    “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 . . .”
    The case has been, of course, the subject of much Parliamentary, press and public interest. Many have formed a sincerely held view that Mr McKinnon should not be extradited. We take careful heed, of course, of all the points which have been urged on his behalf. But it is also necessary to make a number of other points both about the case and more generally. First, that in the scheme of the 2003 Extradition Act, the Home Secretary has an important but limited decision-making role. Indeed, the ‘Act’ provides – and the courts have affirmed - that he must order extradition unless one of four conditions is met. (None of those conditions, I should say, arose when we first considered Mr McKinnon’s case in July 2006). Second, that the United Kingdom has important international obligations towards its many extradition partners. It takes those obligations seriously and, within what the law permits, regards it as its duty to render maximum assistance. We expect no less in return from the UK’s extradition partners. It is a very rare event for a UK request to the USA to be turned down and never at all in over five years. Third, that the US request for Mr McKinnon’s extradition had already been the subject of very rigorous judicial scrutiny before, last August, there was a supervening diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome – a matter currently before the courts.

    Judicial scrutiny of the case to date can be summarised as follows. Mr McKinnon was arrested here for extradition purposes in June 2005. There followed a hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court where, in an attempt to defeat the US request for his extradition, Mr McKinnon and those acting for him sought to raise certain statutory barriers to surrender. (Those are all set out in the Extradition Act 2003). In May 2006, however, the District Judge concluded that none of those safeguards applied and, in the ordinary way, he accordingly sent the case to us for a decision as to surrender.

    At that stage, Mr McKinnon had an opportunity to make representations to Ministers directly against his surrender – but, as above, only on certain limited grounds set out in the ‘Act’. And where, as in this case, such representations are found not to be applicable or not to be made out, the law requires the Home Secretary to order surrender. That decision was reached in Mr McKinnon’s case in July 2006.

    As was his right, Mr McKinnon then appealed to the High Court, both against the Judge’s decision of May 2006 and that of the Home Secretary in July 2006. The High Court dismissed those appeals in April 2007. Mr McKinnon then took his case to the House of Lords which, in July 2008, also dismissed his appeal. Mr McKinnon then made an application to the European Court of Human Rights which in August 2008 rejected the application.

    In this way, you will see that the case had withstood the closest possible judicial scrutiny before a supervening diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome was brought to our attention. Notwithstanding the Home Secretary’s limited role in the process and the late stage in the case at which Asperger’s Syndrome was diagnosed, you will understand that extradition may not take place if to extradite would be incompatible with a person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In these exceptional circumstances, it was therefore agreed to consider fresh representations, including on grounds of Mr McKinnon’s diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome, as to whether the order for Mr McKinnon’s surrender to the USA should be upheld. Notwithstanding what has been reported in some quarters, that is not to say that we were able to approach the case with a broad, residual or general discretion: the correct legal consideration was whether to proceed with extradition was compatible with Mr McKinnon’s human rights. If extradition is not compatible with Mr McKinnon’s human rights extradition would have to be halted, but if extradition is compatible with the ECHR there is a legal duty to extradite and to act in any other way would be unlawful. The decision as to the effect extradition would have on Mr McKinnon’s human rights was not a decision to be taken lightly; but, after examining all of the material and evidence relied upon, we concluded in October 2008 that the material and evidence relied upon against Mr McKinnon’s extradition to the USA did not engage his rights under the ECHR. Accordingly, there was an obligation under the Extradition Act 2003 to give effect to the order for extradition.

    As was their entitlement, however, those acting for Mr McKinnon then sought and obtained the permission of the High Court for a judicial review of that further decision.

    During May, Mr McKinnon also lodged a further application for judicial review, this time against a CPS decision in February 2009 not to bring a prosecution against him in the UK.

    Following hearings of both matters (which included a careful weighing of all the evidence as to Mr McKinnon’s Asperger’s Syndrome), the High Court delivered its judgment on 31 July. They found that extradition would not contravene his human rights and that accordingly there was a statutory duty to proceed with extradition. Contrary to misleading reporting in some quarters of the press, the High Court specifically rejected the suggestion that there was any discretion which could be exercised to halt extradition. In view of the High Court’s conclusions it would (subject of course to any successful challenge to their decision) be unlawful to seek to halt extradition.

    In the other matter, the High Court refused Mr McKinnon permission to mount a judicial review challenge to the decision not to institute criminal proceedings in this country. The High Court considered that the US was the better place for prosecution. The Court also considered that the challenge to the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) not to institute proceedings in the UK was ‘unarguable’. They also expressed the view that the challenge to the DPP’s decision was really a collateral challenge to the extradition process and that this was a ‘wholly unacceptable state of affairs’.

    Mr McKinnon’s lawyers have given notice of their intention to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (as the House of Lords is soon to become). I do not therefore propose to say more at this stage about the facts of the particular case – other than to hope that this background may be of some assistance not only in clarifying the Home Secretary’s role in the extradition process but also in demonstrating that those acting for Mr McKinnon continue to avail themselves before the courts of every opportunity to contest extradition. In this way, it may clearly be seen that the final outcome of the case and the UK’s treaty obligations are being subjected to the closest attention and to the greatest possible procedural fairness.

    If Mr McKinnon is extradited and is subsequently found guilty and receives a prison sentence in the United States, it would be open to him to apply to serve that sentence in the United Kingdom. The application would require the consent of both the American and British governments. The British Consulate in the United States would explain to Mr McKinnon, at his request, how to apply for the transfer.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 27, 2009
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.