Pentagon hacker, Gary McKinnon, diagnosed with Asperger

Post Reply New Topic

I agree with the minority of reasoned comments and posts in this thread.

I have no respect for these knee-jerk witch-hunts.

Macbeth, You have my agreement 100%

Thats not the same. Mckinnon is a British national threatened with extradition to a FOREIGN nation. The two poles were extradited to their nation of origin, which may or may not have been beneficial for their case, but they were being returned to their homeland.

American jails (the places you go before trial, and are pressured/tortured into pleading guilty without a trial) are apparently pretty hellish for anyone, not just aspies. I say anyone who can avoid being extradited, rendered, or otherwise delivered into the hands of that system is fully justified in using whatever excuse they can think of.

Aren't they supposed to be really secure against attacks and hacks? So what's the problem? Someone trying to get in, but the guards sending them away....

Unless he got past them? Then that would be reason enough

You could make an argument that he did them a favour, by pointing out flaws in their system. It's not like he sold any secrets to the Russians - or Al-Qaeda, or North Korea, or whoever the bad guys are these days. And this us$800,000 worth of damage he supposedly caused... um... what? Did they specify how, exactly?

Its been said again and again that there was no security, that the sites were unprotected, without firewall, etc etc.

Look at it this way. I have home insurance. If I am robbed, I can claim on it. If I leave my window open and I am robbed, I cannot, because it would be MY FAULT.

It is inexusable that the US government should have such poor security on any computer network of theirs. It throws into doubt their ability to securely handle electronic information, and compromises their security, and the rest of the world (given the nature of international politics and terrorism). Every aspect of this case makes them look like ill-experienced amateurs. They want to crucify this man to make themselves look less stupid. They have chosen a soft target because they think they are assured of a win.

If they do extradite Mckinnon, what guarantee does he have of a fair trial? Consider that several of the inmates of Guantanamo bay, incarcerated WITHOUT TRIAL and oft as not WITHOUT LEGAL ACCUSATION... those poor bastards who do not even have recourse to a legal defense.. were extradited foreign nationals, who were declared terrorists and threats to national security by the US government. Which is exactly what they claim for Mckinnon. How can any of us be sure that he won't end up stuck there for a decade?

On a similar theme: can his family afford to conduct a legal case on foreign soil? Could they afford to visit him in prison, assuming that the Americans allow him to retain that right?

I carry an Autism Alert Card, which states the following:

Important notes for legal or criminal justice professional.

A person with autism is vulnerable, whether as victim, witness or suspect. Their difficulty with communication, interaction and imagination puts them at a disadvantage when their actions and behaviour can be misinterpreted. An Appropriate Adult should be called upon to look after their welfare.

Autism and Asperger Syndrome are indentified as mental and behavioural disorders in the World Health Organisation International Classification Of Diseases, ICD10.

So, bearing that in mind, what guarantee do we have that Mckinnon will not be discriminated against before, during or after and trial or incarceration? Can America provide a guarabnee that he will not? I dont think they can, not by previous behaviour. There are threads here about the various institutions and august educational bodies in the US, and the horrendous way they treat Autistics, that verges on the criminal.. and in some cases parallels the justice system of certain undeveloped nations. In some extreme cases it parallels the behaviour of certain mid-war doctors of Teutonic extraction. Given that, can Mckinnon expect to be treated fairly, without prejudice, and without recourse to what is effectively torture? I think not.

If America cannot be relied on to lock its front door at night, it certainly cannot be relied on to expedite a fair trial for this man.

I have served on two juries, one in 2000 for serious Felony charges (attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted spousal rape, child abuse) and one for misdemeanor charges of violation of a restraining order and a couple of add ons. In the first case we convicted and in the second we acquitted for lack of evidence. Since you did not single me out, or my comments, I won't assume that you meant me.

As far as your complaints go about certain posts I would appreciate some clarification.
1) Do you believe Aspergers generally renders people incapable of knowing right from wrong? I know that is a fairly open ended question, in general should Aspies be considered competent to understand that Murder, Burglary, theft at newspaper stands etc. is generally frowned upon by the Legal System? I ask this because McKinnon seems to be clear on the idea that he is in deep shiite whether or not he did the alleged crime.

I consider that to be a very serious question because, as I posted earlier, it goes straight to the point of whether people with Aspergers can be considered competent to open lines of credit, vote or spend their discretionary income on their hobbies without having to obtain the approval of a Court appointed Gaurdian.

I was mostly referring to the various hate-mongers. Those who have already sentenced this man, and who openly declare to hating him without ever having met him.

I do not consider that AS renders us completely incapable of knowing right from wrong, in the majority of cases. In my experience it is more levels of distinction that we have trouble determining. In this case, the grey shades would appear to be: how much of a crime is it to travel into a prohibited area, if that area is un-signposted and unguarded.

From what I can gather, Mckinnon seems to believe that the US is hiding valuable information that should be given to the world. On one level he believes that the US is wrong to hide it from us (assuming such exists.) He may even consider it criminal that they do. It is possible that he believes the moral imperative to release said information outweighs the criminal nature of its acquisition. This often seems to be the case in governmental circles. In order to determine if what he did was wrong (morally) would we not first have to determine if he was right?

It would seem that technically, he has committed a crime, no matter how shabby the US security. It would seem that the is due some form of punishment. The AS is perhaps more relevant to the nature of that punishment than determining culpability for the crime.

He should be tried in Britain. Crimes have traditionally been tried in the country where the alleged criminal committed the act and not the country where the effects of said crime was felt.

Competency is determined according to the individual realities of a particular person's case/circumstances and not by broad classification. If the condition at issue were some other where it is common for most to remain competent but there is potential for competency to be reduced, would you attempt to apply the same reasoning you appear to use here?

Why is AS in particular a condition that must either reduce or eliminate the competency of all effected, or reduce the competency of none? Most people view conditions accepted as having the potential to reduce competency, far more flexibly, even where the condition is considered far less of a 'spectrum' than AS.

AS does have the potential to contribute to reduced competency. The fact that some people with AS do not like this, does not change the fact, and exhibiting prejudice or outrage towards individuals so afflicted does not change the fact either.

Its perhaps also worth noting that whilst he may be aware he is in deep shite, that does not mean that he understands why, or agrees that he should be.

Well written.

L.

I think the polish case mentioned is what's called a "repatriated sentance",
It allows the person to serve a prison sentance in their homeland allthough they commited the crime in a different country.
Which is the opposite of what's happening in the McKinnon case.

L.

Actually if his Attorney is telling the truth in the original article cited then he has already acknowledged his guilt. And the analogy about leaving a window open doesn't alter the fact that going into another persons house and stealing their possessions is still burglary, whether or not a window was left open.

But the person robbed cannot claim huge costs back if the insurance is void. And guilty of poking around where he should not be or not, nothing Mckinnon has done merits the ludicrous and overblown witchhunt the yanks are after. Maybe they should spend their time prosecuting REAL terrorists and war criminals.. like that guy.. yknopw the one.. reckons that Guantanamo MOSTLY follows the rules of the Geneva convention. Its Geneva convention-ish, so thats OK. Rumsfeld. How about prosecuting him? Be cheaper.. no airfare to pay.