Free Gary McKinnon

Bye bye Baa Baa, Baa Baa bye bye.
One more to go by my count.

Merry christmas

@ Steve - what exactly are you counting ?

If you mean probable cases of rough justice, unfair trials or even genuine terrorist suspects, then there are many more of these in the legal system pipeline.

Steve's your typical internet troll, (a diehard Tony Blair fan and unwavering supporter of George W Bush), with almost as many brain cells.

It looks as if Babar Ahmad has been moved from Woodhill to Belmarsh Prison, where, no doubt, he will be treated like a convicted terrorist, even though he has not been tried or convicted of any crime in the UK or elsewhere.

If you are feeling charitable, you may care to write to him - details at:

http://www.freebabarahmad.com/appeal.php

Look. The guy broke into systems that were located in the US. He has admitted this. And now he is crying that he doesn't want to be punished for the crimes he has committed? Doh! He has admitted his guilt, he's probably going to go down, and he has nobody other than himself to blame.

It's called consequence.

@ trm - it is true, that Gary McKinnon has admitted, in interviews, some minor crimes, which are illegal in the United Kingdom, which is where he should be tried and, if convicted, punished for them. Gary accepts this.

The US authorities claim that no secret information was compromised.

The alleged amount of alleged "financial damage" he caused, is something which will be challenged by his defence lawyers, but o UK Court has had the opportunity to examine any actual prima facie evidence against him, under the controversial Extradition Act 2003. This law is being applied retrospectively, to Gary's case, since he was first arrested back in 2002 !

If Gary was in the USA, accused of doing exactly the same thing to UK military systems, US Courts would demand to see some actual prima facie evidence, not the whole prosecution case, but some reasonable evidence, which the defence can challenge, and the Court can then decide whether it is a serious crime or not.

That has not happened in Gary McKinnon's case, or in the cases of Babar Ahmad, the NatWest 3 bankers etc.

They are being extradited (or have been extradited) soley on the basis of accusations, not any evidence, simply because the UK Government has betrayed our sovereignty to the USA, something which no other country allows, in their extradition arrangements with the USA,and something which the previous arrangements between the UK and the USA did not do either.

If, as your url implies,you are from a US military background, you should ask yourself whether it would have been better to try and convict Gary in the UK, back in 2002, where the Court would have imposed secrecy and reporting restrictions, or whether it is better to have a federal trial in the USA, which will examine the appalling mismanagement of each of the military officers and bureaucrats who were responsible for the disastrous, lack of computer security (blank systems administrator passwords and no internet firewalls !), who will be named and shamed, and if there is any justice, court martialled.

First of all, this is about him breaking into computer systems. He was not "doing anybody a favour" by identifying weak security. That defence doesn't and won't ever wash. I'm not claiming you've used that - I just wanted to get it clear.

Secondly, he has admitted to committing federal offences against computers in the USA. Whilst it's a poor show that the US haven't fully ratified the extradition policy, it's not an excuse for saying he shouldn't be extradited. Point - he has broken US laws. There is a history of extradition between the countries. He should be extradited so he can be prosecuted. The fact he is panicking because he thinks he might be heading for Gitmo, or that he may have a military tribunal is unfortunate, but if he didn't commit the crime, he wouldn't be in this situation.

Given the timeline of events, I'm sure he had no idea that Gitmo and the rest might be in place if/when he was caught. This is unfortunate for him, but no defence against his extradition. First, you cannot demand how you should be treated if caught - no "Well, when I started doing this I thought I'd just get community service. Now you mention military tribunal, I'm a bit scared". Secondly, *he* *has* *admitted* *he* *broke* *the* *law*.

Whilst that doesn't absolve the requirement for the USA to provide prima facie, it does fill in a lot of the blanks. He has repeatedly stated that he's guilty, even stupidly going into absurd detail under interview. That all sounds a lot like "evidence which is suggestive, but not conclusive of his guilt." q.v. prima facie.

I agree that the extradition treaty isn't perfect. But I disagree that the current treaty has any significant impact on McKinnon, with respect to whether he should be extradited or not. He broke US laws. He has to go there and face the result.

At the end of the day, he made a cost/benefit choice when he decided to do this. It seems as though he missed a few details on the cost side.

trm

@ trm - thanks for your intelligent comments.

We disagree on the main point of whether Gary McKinnon should be extradited to the USA to face a trial under the civilian courts, with the real risk of "special measures" or even a military tribunal, or whether he should face a normal trial in the United Kingdom.

It appears that he broke the law in both countries, and, since he is physically in the UK, and so is all the computer and ISP evidence and witnesses which might tie him in to any particular computer intrusion, it seems fairer and more just that he should be tried here. It is normal in extradition cases, for the domestic law of a country where someone is arrested, to take precedence over foreign laws, and our Computer Misuse Act 1990 has been used in the past to prosecute people in the UK accused of computer intrusion and fraud committed against computers physically in the USA.

The scandalous state of insecurity of the US military computer networks at the relevant time was so bad, that there were numerous other unauthorised people, from around the world, on those systems as well, so the burden of proof that only Gary and nobody else accessed the systems in question and allegedly caused damage, is going to be a difficult one for the prosecution, no matter what log files etc. they produce as evidence.

Both of you make interesting points, but I feel that I have to side with trm's arguments over fg's. From what I have seen and read of McKinnon I find him to be an honest, genuine and likeable person. However when it comes to points of law personality traits are irrelevant. Further, whilst his purpose was a noble one, his means, as he has himself accepted, were illegal. The U.S. is fully entitled to demand his extradition and the English courts are expected to meet such a request, not to do so would be seen as undermining confidence in America's ability to apply the rule of law, the majority of states would have complied with such a request and this has nothing to do with being bullied by the U.S. The alleged crime was committed on American soil, namely criminal damage. It is thus irrelevant both where McKinnon was and where his ISP was based at the time of committing the crime. The fact that many other people who may be beyond the arm of the law were involved in the same actions as McKinnon is no excuse for his actions. In extradition cases where matters of national security are raised it is commonplace for such requests to be accepted. The fact that the U.S. has not ratified the bi-lateral treaty agreemment is neither suprising nor in my mind condemnable. A huge number of inter-state/international treaty agreements/obligations remain unsigned/unratified. Why? Maybe the states involved are not completely happy with the agreements reached, maybe because they know that by failure to ratify they are further away from the reach of the ICJ or maybe just because the wheels of bureaucracy move slowly and they have not got around to it. None of the above are reproachable in that the U.K. is under no obligation to enforce or be bound by the terms of such an agreement until the U.S. have also ratified. In matters of extradition there is no need for disclosure of the prosecution's planned arguments at trial, as long as the requisite assurances and requirements for extradition are made and there arise no possible breaches of human rights the court has no basis to decline such a request. Indeed the court has no right to demand a prima fascie analysis of the case, to do so would amount to an attempt to judge in English Courts the validty of the basis of an American case, this is something that the Courts would never do unless human rights issues arose, i.e. soering v Uk (death row) scenarios. Note it has been held by the ECHR that long sentences and even life as life sentences for recognisable crimes are not contrary to human rights. So, whilst Gary has every right to feel hard done by in that he was expecting at most a home based 6 month community sentence for his actions, the fault lies with him and now with the U.K for his extradition. My main concern with the matter is in the fact that if the story he tells is true and it is my genuine belief it is. Then the U.S. powers that be have clearly fabricated evidence which they are intending to put before a court. If McKinnon's version of events is true there is simply no way he could of caused $5,000 damage overall, incidentally the minimum required for a one year sentence in the U.S, which is in turn the minimum sentence required for extradition to be granted, let alone $5,000 damage to every computer he accessed. Indeed it is difficult to see how anyone can cause $5,000 to a desktop computer. All the information on them was clearly networked and thus available from elsewhere so any damage must be for actual damage of software/hardware rather than removal/deletion of files. There is no way that a desktop computer even with licensed software(which the government will get at next to nothing) would ever come to a figure anywhere near $5,000. However, that is a matter which will be put to the Court in the U.S. and if the Judge/Jury find this clearly not to be the case then the U.K will have a right to request his return as the basis of the original extradition request will be found to be without substance. I truly hope this is the case as the idea of locking up someone who acted in the way McKinnon did for 62 years seems abhorrent when murders rapists and paedophiles get far less and you can walk away from a manslaughter charge with only three years, thats one and a half years with good behaviour for killing a person and a jury of your peers finding that you didn't do it deliberately. The law can be an ass sometimes and even though U>S> sentencing can be draconian with a greater percentage of the population locked up there than any other country, the rule of law should still always be respected for without society has no hope.

@ roger - agree and disagree with some of your points

Both of you make interesting points, but I feel that I have to side with trm's arguments over fg's.

[...]

The U.S. is fully entitled to demand his extradition and the English courts are expected to meet such a request, not to do so would be seen as undermining confidence in America's ability to apply the rule of law, the majority of states would have complied with such a request and this has nothing to do with being bullied by the U.S.

There are many countries which refuse to allow the extradition of their nationals abroad, for any reason, even murder e.g. Japan and some who will automatically convert a foreign extradition request into a domestic trial.

No other country with bilateral extradition arrangements with the USA allows the US authorities to simply present unchallengable "information" rather than prima facie evidence testable in court by the defence, except for Ireland which then applies a public interest / proportionality test.

The alleged crime was committed on American soil, namely criminal damage.
It is thus irrelevant both where McKinnon was and where his ISP was based at the time of committing the crime.

It is not as simple as that.

Gary McKinnon was physically in the UK, and seems to have committed breaches of the UK Computer Misuse Act 1990, which also claims worldwide scope and jurisdiction. This has been used in the past to prosecute computer intrusion crimes against US computer systems.

It is a fundamental principle of law that charges on alleged domestic crimes trump foreign ones, something which even the current Extradition Act 2003 admits. If the UK authorities chose to charge Gary in the UK, then the US extradition request would fail.

The fact that many other people who may be beyond the arm of the law were involved in the same actions as McKinnon is no excuse for his actions.

Correct.

However, it does raise reasonable doubt as to who exactly caused any particular bit of alleged damage.

In extradition cases where matters of national security are raised it is commonplace for such requests to be accepted.

According to the US idictnment and the porosecutor's statements in 2002, there is apparently no actual "national security" aspect to the Gary McKinnon case. The prosecution has stated that no military secrets had been compromised, and that there was no terrorist or other espionage ring involved.

Whether there is a "UFO coverup" or not, there are, as yet, no charges of espionage being levelled against Gary.

However, there is no guarantee that such charges will not be brought against him if he is sent into US custody. Much of what was considered "unclassified" in 2001, has now been given a higher security rating.

The fact that the U.S. has not ratified the bi-lateral treaty agreemment is neither suprising nor in my mind condemnable. A huge number of inter-state/international treaty agreements/obligations remain unsigned/unratified. Why? Maybe the states involved are not completely happy with the agreements reached, maybe because they know that by failure to ratify they are further away from the reach of the ICJ or maybe just because the wheels of bureaucracy move slowly and they have not got around to it. None of the above are reproachable in that the U.K. is under no obligation to enforce or be bound by the terms of such an agreement until the U.S. have also ratified.

No ! You miss the point entirely - the UK Government has already implemented the provisions of the unsigned, unratified Treaty, into UK domestic law as part of the Extradition Act 2003, which has been applied retrospectively to Gary McKinnon, who was arrested in the UK in 2002

In matters of extradition there is no need for disclosure of the prosecution's planned arguments at trial, as long as the requisite assurances and requirements for extradition are made and there arise no possible breaches of human rights the court has no basis to decline such a request. Indeed the court has no right to demand a prima fascie analysis of the case, to do so would amount to an attempt to judge in English Courts the validty of the basis of an American case, this is something that the Courts would never do unless human rights issues arose, i.e. soering v Uk (death row) scenarios. Note it has been held by the ECHR that long sentences and even life as life sentences for recognisable crimes are not contrary to human rights.

Actually, prima facie evidence (which is not the same as the full prosecution case with all the evidence which will be presented at a full trial) was required under the previous 1972 extradition treaty with the USA.

Effectively, prima facie evidence which can be challenged by the defence, is still required by US courts under both the old and the new treaties when considering an extradition request by the UK Government for someone in the USA, and there is nothing wrong with that principle.

It is the unbalanced nature of the 2003 treaty and Extradition Act 2003 with respect to the USA, which has caused so much political controversy in Parliament, with all the opposition parties united against the Labour Government, attempting, and failing, to overturn it during the recent debates on the Police and Justice Act 2006.

[...]

My main concern with the matter is in the fact that if the story he tells is true and it is my genuine belief it is. Then the U.S. powers that be have clearly fabricated evidence which they are intending to put before a court. If McKinnon's version of events is true there is simply no way he could of caused $5,000 damage overall, incidentally the minimum required for a one year sentence in the U.S, which is in turn the minimum sentence required for extradition to be granted, let alone $5,000 damage to every computer he accessed. Indeed it is difficult to see how anyone can cause $5,000 to a desktop computer. All the information on them was clearly networked and thus available from elsewhere so any damage must be for actual damage of software/hardware rather than removal/deletion of files. There is no way that a desktop computer even with licensed software(which the government will get at next to nothing) would ever come to a figure anywhere near $5,000.

Agreed.

However, it is likely that the usual sort of attempt to include "external consultants fees" and to pay for the upgrade of the computer system has been tagged on to the alleged financial damage costs.

Exactly this sort of argument has been rejected in a recent UK Commercial law case, involving alleged computer hacking of less insecure computer systems (they at least had an administrator password set)- see the previous blog posting:

"UK Commercial Law case precedent on alleged financial damage to a remotely hacked server ?"

However, that is a matter which will be put to the Court in the U.S. and if the Judge/Jury find this clearly not to be the case then the U.K will have a right to request his return as the basis of the original extradition request will be found to be without substance.

Why is that necessary ?

If prima facie evidence of the alleged amount of damage were to be presented before a Judge, as would have happened under the old extradition arrangements, then the defence would have been allowed to argue "$5,000 ? Prove it ! You could buy 2 or 3 new computers for that" (at 2002 prices, probably 3 or 4 equivalent ones now). Then the Judge could decide how serious the alleged damage really was, and whether the seriousness of the alleged crime actually met the threshold for extradition.

British Judges are perfectly capable of doing this, just as well as American ones.

I truly hope this is the case as the idea of locking up someone who acted in the way McKinnon did for 62 years seems abhorrent when murders rapists and paedophiles get far less and you can walk away from a manslaughter charge with only three years, thats one and a half years with good behaviour for killing a person and a jury of your peers finding that you didn't do it deliberately. The law can be an ass sometimes and even though U>S> sentencing can be draconian with a greater percentage of the population locked up there than any other country, the rule of law should still always be respected for without society has no hope.

Trying Gary in the UK would also satisfy the rule of law criterion.

Locking Gary away for the rest of his life - remember he is not a teenager, he is 40 years old, will not make the US Military Computer systems any more secure, and it will not act as a deterrent to any of the other foreign or USA hackers either. It is the likelihood of getting caught which is the only deterrent

American Justice is a percerted joke. Considering what the US is doing to others privacy - they would do just as well to shutup. What this guy did is nothing, it's trivial.

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
-- Edmund Burke

Are there no Good Men left in positions of power or does Power always Corrupt without exception.

To quote Edmund Burke again:
"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny."

And the U.S. far from being the Defender of Freedom and Democracy is instead rapidly becoming the Greatest Tyrant that the world has ever seen.

God Help Us All.

Baber ahmed, who is he, i think he is 1 of us, and we all are baber ahmed, He was never wrong, nevr.I wish i culd be like him,there r many baber ahmed,u cant stp any of them.Im baber ahmed, v all r baber ahmed.....

Your soverienty is at stake. The U.S. is currently pushing Canada around to turn one of our own over to them for selling pot seeds mail order to American's. Marc Emery and 2 other pot heads will never see freedom again if Canada turn's it's back on them. You cannot let this precedent of handing citizen's over to develop.