The Gary, Mckinnon Extradition Case.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm just explaining why the U.S. legal system may have a bad reputation amongst some Europeans, and those well-publicized cases have contributed to this poor reputation. Whether or not the U.S. legal system is actually bad I cannot judge (pun intended).

Okay; and I'm just explaining why that "bad reputation" should not be relevant to the question as to whether Mr. Mckinnon should be extradited.

I'd also note the irony that a country that has enacted a "universal jurisdiction" rule is so worried about a foreign country asserting jurisdiction over one of its subjects.

Originally posted by FMF
If he's autistic then that would of course have a bearing on how he might be treated in this case, and rightly so. Tell us more about what it is that you are referring to with the word "mayhem"? People on both the "right" and "left" oppose his extradition, including your favourite The Daily Mail, and the Conservative Party. "...deportation is being contested, predictibly, by the looney left...". What a caricature you are.

Unlike you I do not read the 'tabloids', and see no reason why a person astute enough to be able to hack in to another nation's security system in order to cause chaos should be allowed to plead a fashionable illness as an excuse to avoid punishment.
Individuals like him are serious menace to all who use computers, costing us a considerable amount to ensure that virus's maliciously planted by them cannot infect our systems. It needs the knowledge that condign punishment unfailingly awaits those caught in the act to deter them.

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
Unlike you I do not read the 'tabloids', and see no reason why a person astute enough to be able to hack in to another nation's security system in order to cause chaos should be allowed to plead a fashionable illness as an excuse to avoid punishment.

In what way do you think Asperges Syndrome is a "fashionable illness"?

if he's smart enough to hack into a system he's smart enough to pay for it.

Originally posted by sh76
Why wouldn't he be treated fairly?

I myself am not sure that he would be treated unfairly however the somewhat apoplectic war-on-terror-esque hyperbole and rhetoric from the U.S legal authorities is worrying and seems to have girded the collective loins of politicians, public and legal minds in the U.K.

Why did U.S. authorities suggest that McKinnon might be sent to Guantanamo Bay? Why have they talked about him doing 70 years in gaol? The cost of the "damage" he caused amounted to much the same as one of the Pentagon's fabled toilet seats.

McKinnon's offence was apparently not an extraditable one at the time it was committed. The U.S. seeks to make it extraditable retrospectively by using anti-terrorism measures enacted subsequently. The security breech is completely embarrassing - McKinnon for all intents and purposes accessed open, unsecured machines - and this embarrassment may be the reason for the anger. An apology to the American people by the Pentagon might surely have been in order, no? Seemingly not.

Terrorism charges? Retrospective laws? Guantanamo Bay? 70 years behind bars? Hell hath no fury like manly warriors caught with their slacks around their ankles.

Whether it's fully justified I don't know for sure, but clearly there is reason to wonder if he would be treated fairly.

But, putting all that aside - and returning to the the legal issue - if what he did was not an extraditable offence when it was committed, should he be extradited?

Originally posted by FMF
I myself am not sure that he would be treated unfairly however the somewhat apoplectic war-on-terror-esque hyperbole and rhetoric from the U.S legal authorities is worrying and seems to have girded the collective loins of politicians, public and legal minds in the U.K.

Why did U.S. authorities suggest that McKinnon might be sent to Guantanamo Bay? Why have t ...[text shortened]... hat he did was not an extraditable offence when it was committed, should he be extradited?

I don't think the ex post facto law doctrine has an application to whether an offense was extraditeable. It was an offense at the time it was committed. Extradition procedure is politics, not justice.

So, to answer your question:

yes

Originally posted by sh76
I don't think the ex post facto law doctrine has an application to whether an offense was extraditeable. It was an offense at the time it was committed. Extradition procedure is politics, not justice.

Well if you concede that it's just politics and not a matter of justice, then you'll appreciate that the politically motivated extradition process runs into domestic political brick walls in the U.K.

Did anyone at the Pentagon apologise or get demoted or resign over what happened? Or did politics trump justice there too?

Originally posted by FMF
Well if you concede that it's just politics and not a matter of justice, then you'll appreciate that the politically motivated extradition process runs into domestic political brick walls in the U.K.

Did anyone at the Pentagon apologise or get demoted or resign over what happened? Or did politics trump justice there too?

Well, that may be the political reality in the UK; but that doesn't mean I have to like it or be happy about it.

Did anyone at the Pentagon apologise or get demoted or resign over what happened? Or did politics trump justice there too?

I don't have any idea. Certainly, if there was a preventable breach in security (as there seemingly was), the Pentagon should take whatever steps are necessary to prevent that breach from re-occurring. One of those steps, of course, is deterring potential future cyber-criminals by punishing the ones who are caught.

Originally posted by sh76
One of those steps, of course, is deterring potential future cyber-criminals by punishing the ones who are caught.

Your legal people talked up the deterrent thing so much it caused political problems.

Originally posted by sh76
I don't think the ex post facto law doctrine has an application to whether an offense was extraditeable. It was an offense at the time it was committed. Extradition procedure is politics, not justice.

So, to answer your question:

yes

The question was: if what he did was not an extraditable offence when it was committed, should he be extradited? (emphasis supplied)

The answer to that question is rather clearly "no" unless the UK government feels like it. For one party to an extradition agreement to unilaterally add offenses to what is a extraditable offense is not in the spirit of the original agreement. If FMF version is correct, then the UK would be justified to refuse to extradite on those grounds IMO.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The question was: if what he did was not an extraditable offence when it was committed, [b]should he be extradited? (emphasis supplied)

The answer to that question is rather clearly "no" unless the UK government feels like it. For one party to an extradition agreement to unilaterally add offenses to what is a extraditable offense is not ...[text shortened]... ersion is correct, then the UK would be justified to refuse to extradite on those grounds IMO.[/b]

The assertion that the extradition agreement at the time would not have allowed the extradition at the time of the offense (which only appeared recently on this thread) does change things, of course. If he could be extradited under the agreement as it existed (which I was assuming for most of this thread), the UK would not be justified in holding him on some vague ground that the US justice system will not treat him fairly.

If FMF version is correct, then the UK would be justified to refuse to extradite on those grounds IMO.

Justified, perhaps. But I still think it would be silly and a needless slap in the face to the US, against whose laws this person apparently intentionally committed a crime. Allies are supposed to cooperate with each other beyond the absolute minimum required by their applicable agreements. I can't understand why the UK would want to protect this guy, assuming that they're satisfied as to the evidence of his guilt.

Originally posted by sh76
The assertion that the extradition agreement at the time would not have allowed the extradition at the time of the offense (which only appeared recently on this thread) does change things, of course.

His offences were committed 2001-2002 and were covered by the Computer Misuse Act [1990] under which he could not be extradited to the U.S.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/ukpga_19900018_en_1

The Extradition Act 2003 was only ratified by the U.S. in 2006.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=820518

There are some thought provoking thoughts about the Extradition Act at wikipedia [my emphasis added]:

"Controversy surrounds the US-UK extradition treaty of 2003 which was implemented in this act. Considered by some to be one-sided because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK, and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa"

Originally posted by FMF
His offences were committed 2001-2002 and were covered by the Computer Misuse Act [1990] under which he could not be extradited to the U.S.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/ukpga_19900018_en_1

The Extradition Act 2003 was only ratified by the U.S. in 2006.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=820518

There are some thought pro ...[text shortened]... el of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa"[/b]

If there's really no reciprocal right; the UK government was pretty stupid to sign the agreement. But in any case, regardless of what the countries have formally agreed to, both countries ought to extradite to the other people who have intentionally caused crimes to be committed within the border of the other country. If the politics have been bungled, that's unfortunate; but it doesn't change the underlying fact.

Originally posted by sh76
The assertion that the extradition agreement at the time would not have allowed the extradition at the time of the offense (which only appeared recently on this thread) does change things, of course. If he could be extradited under the agreement as it existed (which I was assuming for most of this thread), the UK would not be justified in holding him on some va ...[text shortened]... uld want to protect this guy, assuming that they're satisfied as to the evidence of his guilt.

If I'm reading the UK statute correctly, the maximum McKinnon could get for his crime in the UK is six months in jail. The claim earlier was that the US might give him up to 70 years or even toss him in Gitmo as a "terrorist".

The primary purpose of governments is to protect the Natural Rights of their citizens. For the UK government to turn over their citizen to possibly face what the people of the UK surely regard as a cruel and unjust sentence would not be performing its primary function. Would the US extradite a citizen to Singapore who could get a life sentence for spitting on the sidewalk (hypothetical obviously; I recall that it is a crime to spit on the sidewalk there but haven't bothered to look up possible sentences)?

If the US doesn't want to be "slapped in the face" in this manner, it should conform its laws to accepted international norms even if Scalia and company feel that is unnecessary.