The European Court of Human Rights Press release:
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS582
12.08.2008
Press release issued by the Registrar
European Court of Human Rights temporarily grants request for interim measures by Gary McKinnon
On 29 July 2008, Gary McKinnon lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights (application no. 36004/08). He complains principally under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) about the conditions of detention he would face if convicted in the United States of America.
The Government of the United States have sought his extradition to stand trial on charges of fraud-related activity in connection with computers.
Mr McKinnon sought interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to prevent his extradition to the United States while the Court considered his application. On 12 August 2008 the Acting President of the Chamber to which the case has been allocated decided to indicate to the Government of the United Kingdom, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited to the United States before midnight on 29 August 2008. This was in order to allow the Chamber to examine the request at the earliest opportunity, namely at its meeting on 28 August 2008.
Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court the Court may indicate to the parties any interim measure which it considers should be adopted in the interests of the parties or of the proper conduct of the proceedings before it.
***
Further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
- -
It is not clear from this Press Release exactly which of the Sections of the Court will make up the 7 Judge Chamber.
If they decide to allow the case to go forward, then it may either be decided by them, or they may pass it on to the 17 Judge Grand Chamber.
The list of all of the available Judges and their brief biographies is available on the Composition of the Court web page.
Gary:
Recently the WORLD COURT concluded that the US should not execute any of the Mexican citizens they currently hold in death row because they were not given opportunities to defend themselves for not speaking the English language and not having been given free access to their Consulate as determined by International statutes.
As you well know they "fried" one of those Mexicans saying that the World Court decisions have no value int he U.S. This is a violation of every basic principle in international law and human decency.
Further the ECHUR has found against the UK in their attempt to extradite a Tamil to Sri Lanka. The UK government ignored the most basic of the realities - in Sri Lank Tamils get killed simply for being Tamil. The US violates human rights systematically and IS NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO THE UN DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. This in itself is a strong point against them!
As such you should expect the European Court of Human Rights to decide in your favor and in favor of many applicants in your situation. I'm pretty sure that if they asked for a hold till the 29th, that is because they found substance in your allegations AND are going to put it in writing prior to a full session which will take a couple of years.
May I suggest that you marry a citizen of France, Spain, Portugal, and apply for the nationally of your bride ASAP. In most European countries you are entitled to citizenship in one year if you marry.
If you're gay, here in Spain you can get married within days. As far as I know European countries (with the exception of the UK) do NOT extradite their own to the US exactly because the US ins not deemed sufficiently humanitarian or decent for those purposes ...
With best regards and lots of friendship,
Jose Pedro Martins
activist for Amnesty International
member of the Rapid Action Committee
Marrying to avoid extradition in my opinion is a admission of guilt and just plain cowardly. I say wait for the ECHUR see it through see it head on. Exhaust all your options before going into an empty marriage just to avoid extradition.
I am curious to see as many people in the "network security" world how this will turn out. The next few weeks will either entice / detour people from "hacking" foreign countries. Within our respective countries IMO. Well thats pushing it but a lot of people all over the world (scriptkiddies/ooma/guru/hard working network security people/hackers/crackers) are curious about what will happen.
I don't know much about this case but it seems to me that the US is taking the wrong approach here. What they really should do is give this guy a job to audit all their sensitive sites and recommend improvements.
I realise that they want to deter other hackers not encourage them but from my limited understanding this particular hacker didn't intend any ill will and could use the job.
Any IT person with half a brain realises that there are many Chinese and other nationals hacking into these systems with far more malicious motives.
Hi all, Alien UFOs are real! I hope Mr.McKinnon does not come to Guantánamo.The Governments of this World know the truth over Alien UFOs. The Governments of this World must help Mr.McKinnon.
Energy is a static quantity and is denoted in joules. Power is a measure of energy over time, and is denoted in
watts (joules per second). The three levels of the Kardashev Scale can be quantified in units of power (watts) and
plotted on an increasing logarithmic scale.
Type I — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available on a single planet — has approximately
1016 or 1017 W available.[2] Earth specifically has an available power of 1.74 ×1017 W (174 petawatts, see Earth's
energy budget). Kardashev's original definition was 4 ×1012 W — a "technological level close to the level presently
attained on earth" (presently meaning 1964).[3]
Type II — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single star, approximately 4 ×
1026 W.[2] Again, this figure is variable; the Sun outputs approximately 3.86 ×1026 W. Kardashev's original
definition was also 4 ×1026 W.[3]
Type III — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single galaxy, approximately 4
×1037 W.[2] This figure is extremely variable, since galaxies vary widely in size; the stated figure is the
approximate power output of the Milky Way. Kardashev's original definition was also 4 ×1037 W.[3]
Using our nuclear explosion tests as a perspective, Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, released
an estimated 57 megaton yield; even a Type I civilization makes use of roughly 25 megatons of TNT equivalent a
second. A Type II civilization consumes 4 × 109 times more energy (4 billion hydrogen bombs per second), and a type
III 1011 times more yet.
Current human civilization has a Kardashev value of about 0.7. However, the Kardashev scale was not developed to
model a specific civilization. It's primarily used by SETI researchers, science fiction authors, and futurists as a
theoretical framework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
-----------------
A profit based civilization is a society that is structured by a stock market and values incresed profit margins
considering this to be growth. A knowledge civilization is inspired by new technologies and promotes human rights
and ecological health.
-----------------
The UN is in control of human rights. The UN is in control of world bank.
If you would like to research this go to www.un.org/Overview/rights.html and
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/0,,contentMDK:20040610~menuPK:41691~pagePK:43912~piPK:44037,00.
html
-----------------
New World Order refers to a conspiracy in which a powerful and secretive group is alleged to be plotting to
eventually rule the world via an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign states and other checks
and balances in world power struggles. In this theory, many significant occurrences are said to be caused by a
powerful secret group or groups. Historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to rule the
world primarily through a combination of political finance, social engineering, mind control, and fear-based
propaganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy)
-----------------
I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor am I a science fiction author. I am an Industrial Electronics Engineer. My
point is this - the same company that patented the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - also controls The World
Bank - who promots profit.
This case is critical to the entire planet and the future of civilization. If Gary is extradited then we can assume
that the profit of petroleum is of far more value than human rights will ever be. If Gary is not extradited then
there is still a glimmer of hope that civilization may evolve from its current state of barbaric murder and mayhem
for petroleum to developing and using alternative energy such as the free energy generators.
This would involve evolving to a knowledge based society from a profit based society and the only way I can see
this happening is by boycotting the petroleum industry.
I refuse to buy petroleum.
I support a knowkedge based society.
I stand by Gary all the way.
Elle, Elec.Eng.Tech.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7040453665540929835
Hi Gary, I highly recommend veiwing the video by Robert Maynard. link above.
He has three films on google video, and you definately need to see them and look at the work on his forum.
There is a simple solution to your troubles in Legalland.
Remove your person from their juristriction, and you have won. No extradition and no prison sentance.
What they will have is a contract from your IP no doubt tying your strawman, into a contract enabling them to act in the courts.
Your solicitor or barrister will most likely never submitt this to you as they have a vested interest in a prolonged battle inside the Judicial process, thats where they earn their money.
Watch the video's and you'll be glad you did.
Whats more everyone of us world wide are multi millionaires to boot.
I think the Goverment of United States should be very thankfull to Gary McKinnon. Thanks to Gary they have discovered holes in their Informatic Systems. The loss for the american Goverment is nothing. What would had happened if somebody did what Gary did, during a State of War? The americans should say: THANKS, Gary.
I don't know Garry and harbor him no personal ill will. However, the arguments made all over this site are incredibly irresponsible and, frankly, idiotic. "He didn't intend harm when he broke in to the system." "They should thank him for exposing the system's weakness." Etc. Etc.
Fact is, Garry BROKE THE LAW. You cannot get much more foolish than messing around with Defense Department networks when the US is at war.
Would you all be happy with applying your moral relativism to all spheres of life. "I didn't intend to steal anything when I broke in to your home." (And don't give me the "there were no passwords" crap. Garry has admitted that he hacked in to the system. Read his interview with The Gaurdian) "That bank should thank the thieves for exposing the vault's weakness""
Etc. Etc.
He is not going to Guantanamo, nor is he going to be sentenced to 60 years. Garry and his lawyers have stirred that pot up to gain sympathy. (Hell, I'd do the same thing. This is being tried in criminal court. Our legal system is no were near perfect but it certainly is not the hellish quagmire you all fantasize about. The US is no different that Britain's or other European countries. Read your own papers and I'm sure you can come across cases of injustice every day. (not that Garry's is unjust)
HOW MANY PEOPLE BRAKING EVERYDAY THE LAW?
You did too, much worse maybe!
This case is just a psychical problem. Making wonder about something and want to find out.
A second (or whatever) thought that everyone has.
Just forget about making money and leave Gary free is what the world need to do NOW.
There's nothing stolen, stop playing/bitching with law or what is been hacked!
GARY IS THE PEACEMAKER!
Hi Gary,
As a Systems Administrator, it is standard proceedure to change the
Administrators account. People who are not aware of this should read
one of the articles listed below prepared by Microsoft.
Windows Server 2003 Security Guide::
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/prodtech/windowsserver2003/w
2003hg/s3sgch02.mspx#E2D
Changing the Project Web Access Administrator Password::
office.microsoft.com/en-us/projservadmin/HA011643061033.aspx
XP Security Checklist::
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457135.aspx
SQL Server 2000 SP3 Security Features and Best Practices: Security
Best Practices Checklist::
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/sp3sec0
4.mspx#EZC
Windows 2000 Server Baseline Security Checklist::
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc751389.aspx
Proxy Server 2.0 Security Checklist::
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/257685
Install Active Directory Domain Services on the Windows Server
2008-Based Member Server::
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc755103.aspx
Windows NT 4.0 Domain Controller Configuration Checklist::
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/library/cc722923.aspx
As a Licenced Penetration Tester, it is not unusual for highly
sensitive data access to be tested using common entry strategies.
Intrusion Detection systems are also used in network operation which
require a high level of security.
The US Military machines did not employ any one of these proceedures
to ensure the security and safety of sensitive military information.
I would say the liability of fault lies with microsoft for failing to
provide idiot proof software.
Elle, Elec.Eng.Tech.
P.S. I'll marry you Gary;)
@ Greg ...
Do you really think your analogy works, breaking into a house or bank ?
What is worse for society or the people living in the house, someone snooping around their computer or someone breaking into their house/bank ?
I think i know what would make most people feel worse.
Thank you Elle,
for sharing your knowledge and for your consistent support for Gary.
It's very much appreciated.
Janis
Greg, America runs a concentration camp called Guantanamo.
The American administration thinks water boarding (simulated drowning) isn't torture but the rest of the civilised world including the UK know it is absolutely torture.
The US (along with the UK) invades and bombs countries and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and calls it war.
Gary didn't steal anything and the fact that he on an antiquated dial up machine supposedly brought the US military to its knees is a Huge Joke or the Embarrasement of the century (you choose)
The illegal invasion of Iraq was an extremely serious criminal act, so why aren't you shouting for the Western leaders responsible to be prosecuted, as THEY BROKE THE LAW, COMMITED A CRIME etc.
Not securing your military computers against an extremely low level domestic intrusion is a crime of major proportions. The American population were left totally unprotected by the negligence of the administrators of military computers.
If a real terrorist had walked in to your unprotected systems, God knows what would have happened.
Yes, you should thank Gary for alerting you to the fact that these computers had no Passwords and I'm sure the American people would be very grateful to Gary and very angry at their government. (The word password couldn't be described as a password)
The US does not extradite the IRA terrorists that bombed the UK and maimed and killed civilians.
The US refuse to extradite the soldier that murdered Terry Lloyd the ITN journalist and his interpreter.
The US refused to release the cockpit video when REPEATED "friendly Fire" killed a British soldier.
The US administration will not sign the Human Rights act, Does this mean that they're not Human?
Logic says this is not a crime against US.
It is a US crime against Gary for him finding a hole in a US system that is hiding information.
Good luck Gary.
What IS Hacking vs. What IS NOT Hacking
By Elle Hart, Elec.Eng.Tech.
Hacking is a term loosly refering to unauthorized access. The Wikipedia
defines Hacking in a Security context to be - "In a security context, a hacker
is someone involved in computer security/insecurity, specializing in the
discovery of exploits in systems (for exploitation or prevention), or in
obtaining or preventing unauthorized access to systems through skills, tactics
and detailed knowledge."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computer_security)
I am a seasoned professional in the IT field, having both certificates, ect as
well as over 18 years experience.
After having read this blog for a number of years I have noticed there seems
to be a great deal of confussion as to what is defined as hacking and what is
not defined as hacking.
Hacking is equivallent to unauthorized access as is non-hacking is to
authorized access.
Firstly, to demonstrate authorized access.
1. Install a fresh copy of Windows 2000 Advanced Server to a machine.
2. Reboot to ensure the installation is complete.
3. At the login screen type username " " and password " " to enter.
4. Change the the Administrator password and account name.
5. Continue configuring the operating system.
Notice that in step 3. we accessed the Administrator account with the default
username and password built right into the operating system as shipped by
Microsoft? Would this be considered unauthorized access? No! Of course it
isn't anauthorised access! If so then every owner of Windows 200 Advanced
Server would be guilty of computer crime. If so Microsoft would be guilty of
computer crime. Noone that ever uses the default access codes are guilty of
computer crime. This is authorized access to anyone.
If a person is to change or subvert data for purposes of unauthorized access -
this IS HAcking. To demonstrate hacking into a VPN follow the steps outlined
here.
Firstly we must find an interesting military site to target. We can easily do
this by employing the advanced search option of the Google search engine by
typing...
Google search::
site: mil + vpn
a site of interest is ::
https://vpn.usace.army.mil/ or https://vpn.usace.army.mil/
where there is a VPN login portal.
If the administrator forgot to set the default password the username will be
and the password will be blank No hacking
necessary for this access!!!
If however, the administrator configured the server properly, you may have to
begin hacking into the VPN. Please understand that specialized knowledge may
be required but you are welcomed to try by following the instructions posted
here::
http://forums.hackervoice.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1618
good luck.
Information on VPNs and how they work as well as how they are set up can be
found here::
http://www.net.princeton.edu/vpn/pptp.html or
http://helpdesk.princeton.edu/kb/display.plx?ID=6023
If you are successful in your unauthorized access please do not forget to post
all relevent data to::
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/post/1
prior to your arrest.
In conclusion, authorized access is not hacking. Therefore Gary McKinnon is an
innocent man. If you are not convinced, call the Microsoft Security Experts at
1-866-727-2389 for further information.
Elle Hart, Elec.Eng.Tech.
CORRECTION::
Microsoft has changed their phone number again, the new number is 1-800-936-5700.
Free Gary - by Elle Hart, Ellec.Eng.Tech.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Gary they say is a hacker - charged with computer crime
The US wants to extadite
then we'd regret your plight
Gary I would set back the registry clocks, anytime
Clear the ACL logs, ACK, spoof dns in BIND
To Free Gary
To Free Gary
Free Gary
Whilst all the time twas - some .mil admin on default
Or a critical microsoft flaw
saw to it all
Gary I wish'd I'd tracert your destination, control alt
Maintained plausible deniability, halt
To Free Gary
To Free Gary
Free Gary
Microsoft out of box security flaw - if only they'd used *NIX
Planetary security so fragile
Yet those liable in denial
Gary I'd copy a swap file, break MD5 to get you out of this fix
Reroute or proxy you, hush the forensics
To Free Gary
To Free Gary
Free Gary
Would not be an issue what to do - who to sue
Lie upon lie
Letting our planet die
Gary you know I remain stateless over a covert channel for you
nmap to my ops, my systems are true
To Free Gary
To Free Gary
Free Gary
There is no security - in a world of idiocy
Best be nice to the hackers
reverse engineering programmers
Gary you can TCP to my gateway my bandwidth is yours see
tunnel via IPV6 or 4 connection ESTABLISHED IP
To Free Gary
To Free Gary
Free Gary
All for the truth - extraterestrials do exist
Why the coverup and conspiracy
Has to do with petro energy
Gary my hero use your ethereal rainbow tables to free us, persist
and HEX dump the cache, noone the truth can resist
To Free Gary
To Free Gary
Free Gary
Petroleum leaves us breathless - give up the orgonia
The new day is upon us
soon they'll be powerless
Gary Whois this man, quick audit, who has root
This Gary this man Gary McKinnon
To Free Gary
To Free Gary
Free Gary
*shakes his head in disbelief*
Elle Hart, Elec.Eng.Tech. - you got too much time on your hands
Elle - Learn me hacking.
Does a proxy work for that and help to hide your ip addres,..?
Know, i'l have to start from under zero.
Re-Sentencing: When David Panic /the Register refers to 8 to 10 years or 4 to 5 years, they should point out that this is years "per count" and there are at least six counts.
Even if a sentence of five years per count was given, they're talking about 30 years. Gary would be in his seventies by the time he was released.
If given ten years per count, (sixty years) he would definately die in a hardline US prison.
This is where the sixty year sentence comes in.
Gary is being threatened with a sixty year sentence.
No real plea bargain ever existed as no guarantee of any kind was offered or given. Not even a signed letter.
Also they wrote a letter at the time, reserving the right to try Gary as an enemy combatant. (Guantanamo was therefore a very real possibility)
Poor Chantal McKorkle, a young English woman, has spent ten years in a hardline American prison. Sentenced to twenty years for making infomercials on how to make money doing up property.
When she recently asked to be repatriated to serve the remaining ten years in a UK prison this was refused as the US said "Her non violent crime was too serious".
Chantal always protested her innocence but has now realised that she has to pretend she's guilty in order to be set free hopefully in another five years after she's spent fifteen years in prison. They now put up coloured photos of her in prison to try and make it look like a holiday camp when she's actually kept/moved around in leg irons much of the time.
Chantals hope is that she will still be of child bearing age when she is eventually released.
Chantals American Ex husband is kept in an open prison, although the infomercials were his idea.
He's not considered a flight risk.
Good to see that the Free Gary Website finally has a PayPal button on its page, for supporters who wish to make donations.
Presumably this will help towards all of the work involved in putting up news and information relating to Gary's case; as well as passing on interview requests and emails of support and dealing with the press.
The Free Gary Website is the only PR Gary has, as he has no money to employ a PR company.
So hopefully a lot of support will be forthcoming.
I've just made what I think is the first donation.
Hang in there Solo!!
Here is an excellent article you all should read before you post more hysterical nonsense. Garry and his legal team have a very sophisticated PR campaign underway. Don't be fooled:
http://strange.corante.com/archives/2008/08/03/trust_journalists_audiences_and_countries.php
@ greg - unfortunately, that article has several factual errors, just like the mainstream media coverage it rightly criticises.
e.g. there was no Extradition Act 1989 request in 2002, i.e. under the pre-Extradition Act 2003 legislation. The first Extradition hearings were in 2005.
greg,
Law Lesson #1
The difference between substantiative evidence and unsubstantiative evidence is:
Substantiative evidence includes factual data that can be proven by full names, legal document file numbers, quotes of existing laws, precidented case law file numbers and physical exhibits.
Unsubstantiative evidence includes claims that possess no actual factual supporting data as in substantiative evidence and therefore amounts to nothing more than personal opinions and hearsay.
Kevin Anderson failed to provide any facts to prove his claims and therefore everything said is heresay. Hearsay is not admissible in a Court of Law as anyone can say anything but it does not mean that it is the truth unless it can be backed by solid evidence. If this was not the case just think about how even more messy the legal system would be than it already is. So next time I see a post from you it would be nice if you could provide some full names and statute law. Otherwise it just looks to me that you are guilty of a sophisticated anti-PR campaign.
Thank-You
Elle Hart, Elec.Eng.Tech.
I can't deny its an interesting article but at the end of the day so what if there is a PR machine at work. Who cares. Let's just wait and see what happens tomorrow (28th August).
Personally I hope the extradition fails as much because of the unfairness of the extradition "treaty" as much as for Gary.
I also think that if he does end up going to America, it will ultimately be the Americans that end up embarrassed as he flies back to the UK after being cleared. They'll have a job proving $5000 of damage on each count and I honestly believe that while the current administration has shown themselves to have failed on so many levels, the judiciary have shown themselves to be independent on decisions that I'm sure the government would have wanted to go their way.
The scare tactics employed to try and get a plea-bargain just show to me that the U$ government are scared.
Elle, being an online journalist, my post is heavily linked to the original source material. You're more than welcome to assess the validity of the source material for yourself.
If you'd like the relevant British law, here is the case number for the Lords decision:
HOUSE OF LORDS
SESSION 2007-08
[2008] UKHL 59
on appeal from: [2007]EWHC (Admin) 762
Does that make it any more factual? I also quote relevant British law under which Gary could have been tried had he illegally accessed British military computers: section 12 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1990/ukpga_19900031_en_3#pt2-l1g12
However, this isn't relevant to the case seeing as he's not being charged under British law. As for American law, he is charged under Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html
I doubt citing the case numbers is really what you want. However, I've merely quoted public statements by Mr McKinnon, his mother and his legal team and rebutted them with information from case law and statements from the British judges and Lords. I'm not clear how your law lesson applies. This isn't hearsay but a matter of public record.
@fg, if you'd like to point out the errors and links to the source material, I'd be more than happy to correct errors in the piece.
I want Gary to work @ my foundation! he's a human hero!!! gary and the truth! free the truth! nasa hides! pentagon hides! usa military hidessssssssssssssssss ://///////////////////////
grays , greys or wheatever they are sucks!!!!!! they eat a great part of our money!, russians were lucky with the economical crisis, but usa... usa need a crisis to send the grays/greys whatever to hell!!! they don't belong here !! no more human dna experiments at a51 nor dulce base !!!
go Gary! The truth is for all not for an elite.
Hey Gary,
Whilst surfing the .mil webspace today, I found this interesting article on
torture written by Lieutenant Colonel Douglas A. Galipeau of The United States Air Force -
it outlines the fact that the US does not have a clear definition of what does
and does not constitute torture.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil13.pdf
Elle, Elec.Eng.Tech.
PS:: Believe Gary!
@ Kevin -
As stated in the House of Lords Judgment, there was a Mutual Legal Assistance request in March 2002, which lead to the arrest of Gary McKinnon by the UK Police under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which has world wide scope.
Gary was released without charge.
There were US Grand Jury Indictments in October and November 2002.
There was no extradition request from the USA, until June 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8134903/
That is when this FreeGary.org.uk blog was started
None of these long delays had anything to do with Gary McKinnon, they were all down to the UK Home Office and the US authorities.
The previous 1972 UK USA Extradition treaty and the procedures involving the presentation and possible challenge of prima facie evidence, under the Extradition Act 1989 did not apply.
The controversial Extradition Act 2003, passed into UK law before the USA had ratified the treaty, was used retrospectively in Gary's case, and therefore only unproven allegations were required, and the usual checks to see that the documentation applied to the correct person.
The US Supreme Court did not start doing that until 2004, and later, more actively in 2006, 2007 and 2008
See the time line of US Supreme Court cases regarding Guantanamo Bay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush
None of these Supreme Court Judgments have yet closed down Guantanamo Bay, which is still in operation.
Back in 2003 when the plea bargaining discussions were underway between the legal teams, the US was still holding several British citizens without charge or the prospect of a fair trial in Guantanamo Bay.
They were not released until January 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4210815.stm
None of these British citizen (just like Gary) detainees were ever accused of "attacking" the US Military, which Gary is accused of.
If you had been in Gary McKinnon's shoes in 2003, would you have trusted an unsigned, unwritten promise that you would not be facing
similar non-civilian treatment once you were in US custody or would you have decided to exercise your legal right to contest the extradition proceedings ?
See the Babar Ahmad Judgment especially regarding the Diplomatic Notes (which, by long standing convention are not signed between sovereign governments, which makes them pretty useless outside of diplomacy) but which cannot the US President, if he chooses to exercise his Executive authority and rubber stamp a request from his bureaucrats to declare anyone as an "enemy combatant".
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/2927.html
As you yourself point out, Gary is not accused of terrorism, and neither is he accused of any US equivalent offence to section 12 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, which deals with the very dangerous activity of deliberately interfering with navigation e.g. light houses, navigation buoys, radio navigation beacons etc.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1990/ukpga_19900031_en_3#pt2-l1g12
Gary is accused of allegedly deleting
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/762.html
It is utter nonsense for the District Court Judge and the Law Lords to have claimed that this is somehow equivalent to deliberately endangering ship navigation of any sort.
If that was the case, then why are there no US allegations under the equivalent US maritime safety laws ?
The maximum criminal penalty for unauthorised access under Section of the Computer Misuse Act 1990
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/ukpga_19900018_en_1#pb1-l1g1
was 6 months in prison.
The Police and Justice Act 2006
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060048_en_1
amended this to up to 2 years, but the amendment has not yet come into force.
The maximum criminal penalty for deleting computer files under Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 was up to 5 years in prison.
Under Section 11 There is also a time limit on the prosecution of Section 1 offences, which has now been removed (but again this is not yet in force in England and Wales)
These potential UK prison sentences are for each count, but, a first time offender would be unlikely to get the maximum penalty, if he plead guilty.
Given the death threats and male prison rape fantasies which have been posted on this blog, over the years, by Americans, that is not an unreasonable fear.
Your implication that there has been some sort of "sophisticated PR" campaign in support of Gary McKinnon is flattering, but untrue - there is this web blog, and his family and friends and hundreds of supporters around the world.
The media interest is essentially organic, and, given the nature of the case, understandable.
Even the NatWest 3 case was more a matter of friends rallying round, than any commercial public relations spin, and the same is true of the Babar Ahmad case, which shares some of the same legal arguments.
Remember, that despite all of the allegations and admissions and publicity, Gary is currently innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, on the basis of actual evidence, in a fair court of law.
Hopefully you will have another look at the Gary McKinnon case, and perhaps revise your article accordingly.
@fg I took a look back at the Lords ruling and have added the correct legal chronology. The extradition request was on 7 October 2004, according to the Lords ruling.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080730/mckinn-1.htm
I would have preferred to rely entirely on public documents and court records, but unfortunately, they are not all online. Until the Lords published their ruling, I was having to piece together the chronology initially from reports like the one on MSNBC. I failed to go back and correct it. It is correct, based on public record (not hearsay) now.
My post was not about his guilt or innocence but about the law and the nature of the punishment he might receive if he were found guilty, which has been key to Mr McKinnon's fight against extradition.
However, the media interest is not entirely organic. As Jon Ronson said in the Guardian, Mr McKinnon called him and offered him an exclusive interview:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2005/jul/09/weekend7.weekend2
The comments here have seized on whether Mr McKinnon can afford or has actively pursued a PR campaign. My point wasn't simply that his public statements mirrored the NatWest 3 and their PR campaign, but that there were factual errors in the reporting and misrepresentations by Mr McKinnon and his legal team, which were easily exposed by comparing their public statements and court records.
US federal sentencing guidelines are 'controlling'. It's based on a complex system of points, and a departure from the guidelines requires judicial reasoning as to why. If one of the US prosecutors who filed the charges says he's looking at 3-5 years, that's the number you should be considering. To keep trumpetting 60 years is in error. The jury cannot award a higher sentence regardless of their mood on a particular day. I won't speculate on why the British media haven't reported the 3-5 year figure, even though again, it is readily available in Associated Press reports.
As the Lords wrote in their ruling, had he accepted the plea agreement, Mr McKinnon's time served would have likely been six to 12 months before repatriation to the UK. Without going too much into his guilt or innocence, which is not for me to decide, he did admit responsibility to unauthorised access of the computer systems in interviews under caution. And Mr McKinnon has admitted to more in public interviews.
http://news.cnet.com/Gary-McKinnon-Scapegoat-or-public-enemy/2008-7350_3-5786782.html
The issue of whether he would be charged under the Computer Misuse Act of 1990 or Section 12 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act of 1990 isn't my interpretation but rather a statement by Lord Brown as reported The Register.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/30/mckinnon_lords_ruling_analysis/page2.html
Your issue is with the Lords, not with me. My interpretation of British law is generally trumped by a judge or a Lord. I'm allowed to my own opinion but not my own facts.
Also, as I pointed out, the plea agreement wasn't unwritten, as you contend. The Lords said that it was in "a lengthy document". Plea agreements are complex legal agreements, and in the US are binding on both the State and the defendent. Why did Mr McKinnon refuse the deal? Not because it was unwritten or unsigned but rather, and I quote the Lords' ruling:
"Following the meeting of 14 April 2003 Ms Todner took advice from an American defense lawyer and, subsequently, the appellant declined the “deal"."
Also, as Lord Brown said, again, as reported in The Register, plea deals are not unknown in the UK but they are informal discussions rather than the formal process in the US.
As for military courts, Guantanamo and execution, none of these are relevant. He has been charged in US Federal Court, a civilian court. He is charged with seven counts of computer fraud and misuse which carry a maximum of 60 years, but a more likely 3-5 year sentence. None of the charges are capital offences so whether some unnamed American official said Mr McKinnon should fry is also irrelevant. If extradited, he is not going to some extra-judicial black hole, but the US Federal Court system. Why do you think the Guantanamo detainees fought so hard for habeas corpus? Answer: They want access to US civilian courts and some semblance of due process.
Due process is the overarching question in this case. I will cede that over the last eight years, there has been significant abuse of due process in the US. However, Mr McKinnon is not suffering from lack of access to British Courts, and if extradited, he will not suffer from lack of access to the US civilian court system where his guilt or innocence will be weighed by judge and jury. Or he could follow in the footsteps of the NatWest 3 and accept a plea agreement once in US custody.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/22/business/natwest.php
fg, thanks for pointing out the incorrect legal timeline. However, I stand by the rest of the post.
Well he's lost his case at the European courts... only two words for it...
Absolute traversty!
Just sent a email to Jacui Smith.....i suggest everyone else does so, and damm soon.
Why are we capitulating to the Pentagon? The American military is a laughing stock, only fit to attack World3 countries, with security like, well - the MOD. Gary is the victim of cosmetic papering over the cracks to maintain the apearance of power. Enjoy your golf Judge.
Gary- if you get a civilian trial, the use of "Jury Nullification" might end the case against you.
The US Supreme Court has upheld the right of jurors to judge the law itself- jurors can ignore bad law and let the accused go, even if he/she technically broke the law.
This might not work in a military tribunal.
Good luck Gary , I do hope you have a trump card hidden somewhere.
Re-Kevin Anderson: The so called Plea Bargain was not binding in any way and this was pointed out to Gary which is why after initially agreeing tio it, he refused it. The prosecution also wrote a letter saying that they reserved the right to try Gary as a terrorist.
It was also stated that the charges could be altered once Gary was in the US and that a Judge could sentence Gary to however many years he felt like.
This so called Plea bargain was not as you described and not as the Lords so stupidly assumed.
Trouble is the US prosecutors can go behind the scenes to the Judges etc and say what they want and show what so called evidence they want but Gary has no opportunity to defend the accusations;so on a one sided argument; the Judges and Law Lords pronounce Gary Guilty and therefore automatically predjudice any trial he might have.
Gary is only allowed to fight the extradition and not the actual charges he is accused of.
Response to Kevin Anderson Continued:
The three to five years sentence originally quoted was "per count" and as there are at least seven counts, this would amount to 35 years which would mean Gary would die in a US prison.
He was told in no uncertain terms that if he didn't accept their excuse for a Plea Bargain that he would be prosecuted to the Max (ten years per count) sixty years maximum allowed.
When someone is threatened with being Fried and the court case is to be held in Virginia which does have the death penalty, the threat is deadly serious and cannot be under or overestimated.
The Americans promised France that they would not ask for the death penalty for Zacarias Moussaoui, a Frenchman with learning difficulties said to be a fantasist.
However, once Zacarias was extradited to the US, the death penalty was requested by the prosecutors and the vote of just one Juror prevented the sentence of the Death penalty being imposed.
Once again the US authorites reneged on their promise without batting an eyelid.
The crime for which Zacarias Moussaoui was to be executed for was the crime of "Lying".
(He said he lied to stop officials uncovering the 9/11 plot)
The respected American lawyer Clive Stafford Smith plus friends & Family of Zacarias insist that this man was not capable of flying a plane and through his learning difficulties, fantasised about being part of this group but he was very nearly executed nevertheless.
As for Jon Ronson saying that Gary pursued him; I can vouch for the fact that the reverse is true.
The interview you referred to had inconsistencies that Gary later took up with Jon Ronson but unfortunately the interview is still on line without any retractions.
If you want to read a credible Guardian reporters take on the case I suggest you read Duncan Campbells journalistic pieces.
Duncan Campbell is one of the few truly honest and honourable Journalists around who is not afraid to take a stance against the American domination of the UK government and UK citizens.
OK J, let's try this again. What do any of the things you brought up have to do with Garry's crimes? Absolutely nothing. Don't like the treaty, work to change it. Garry has been tried in CRIMINAL court. He is not going to Guantanamo. There is no death penalty for hacking. And that is how leverage works in a PLEA BARGAIN. What are they going to say, take this deal or not, same thing.
Greg, if you think tapping on a keyboard, a non violent crime, computer mis-use jusifies Extradition then you are on another wavelength.
It is all way out of proportion and that's the point.
Extradition and threats of ten years per count = sixty years and wanting to try Gary as a "Cyber Terrorist" IT IS INSANITY!!!".
Had he murdered or raped someone,then fine.
How come all of the Peodophiles who download child pornography get a six months or a year or two sentence "much of the child pornography comes from America" and nothing much is done to stop it.
Hunting Gary down after he's had a six and a half sentence of fear is inhumane and way, way out of proportion.
If you care so much about sentencing criminals, fight for America to sign the "one sided" treaty which was so conveniently made retrospective just before Gary was re-arrested two and a half years after the UK decided not to prosecute.
Go after real criminals and stop alienating UK citizens.
How about extraditing the IRA terrorists from the U.S and the soldier that murderted ITN journalist Terry Lloyd.
One law for Americans and one law for Brits and that's the truth of the matter.
We used to be Free in this country. We also have a sense of Humour and are grown up enough to know that Gary is the furthest thing from a Terrorist you could get and you know this too.
The U.S has changed the goal posts yet again in Gary's case. He's always denied the damage and now the U.S has changed the law (a week or so ago) so that "NO PROOF OF DAMAGE IS NOW NEEDED FOR MILITARY COMPUTERS" How Convenient.
Now Gary doesn't even have a fighting chance.
Free Gary....Free U.K. citizens. We want our independence back.
We didn't Vote for Bush but it is clear that we are ruled by America.
By the way Greg,
Gary has not been tried in a criminal court; he has only been allowed to fight extradition and is given no right to fight the charges.
He has been pronounced guilty of the alleged damage without having the chance to defend himself.
Our government and many of the Judges are in the pocket of the USA and they're too damn scared to stand up to them or to say boo, or they wouldn't have signed a one sided treaty in secret.
How can a treaty be one sided or be made retrospective? It's totally stupid.
Example: "Hello everyone, let's sign a treaty and have a cease fire" OK! After it's signed "lets make the treaty retrospective and prosecute everyone that used a weapon"
Wake up for Gods sake.
Hello all
BBC Radio4 repeated the play about this case today Once again it made me so angry that a country like America cant manage to maintain basic security on its web sites and wants to extradite a uk citizen who entered them due to passwords not being activated.
I am disgusted that our government has agreed to a treaty like this.
I wrote to my MP some time ago and received a standard reply.
I dont know what the final outcome of this case will be but there is only one right outcome.
Good luck Gary.