Gary McKinnon saved from extradition to the US!

Post Reply New Topic

Home secretary Theresa May has thankfully decided against the extradition of Gary McKinnon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138

Got to agree with you there !.

I can't believe that it was a malicious act. Although I don't know all the facts of the case.

The Pentagon should have paid him for pointing out that it was possible in the first place.

It's just the 10yrs it's taken to get to this point, that baffles me.

10yrs of worry and stress for him and his family.

The bloody lawyers have probably racked it in. I wonder what the cost of the whole process has been.

It is ridiculous it has taken this long for Britain to stand up to the U.S. and not allow extradition. He has suffered long enough now and I hope the British prosecutors will decline charging him there for the crime.

Aspergers is trending on twitter now.. but I'm uncomfortable with it being used as a reason not to extradite him.

The fact that he is depressed (who wouldn't be with that hanging over their head for 10 years?) and is a suicide risk is a much greater reason - but that's not what the press (thus far) are running with.

Magna Carta, clause 40: "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice." The reason one goes to court is to get justice, and "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied".

So the next time some Brit twit gets hauled in to a Yank court, I hope the judge gives the maximum allowable sentence under the law.

Speculative, TM, but not unreasonable.

My main objection is the blatant exploitation of AS as a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

If the US don't want their computers accessed, take them offline and/or block access. To make it a criminal offence is nonsense - this is the 21st century. The fact that McKinnon hasn't even set foot on US soil means he has committed no crime there. Perhaps the purpose it serves is to set an example to everyone in the world - but it means they have to sacrifice a vulnerable person in doing so.

America always wants to own and control the internet (and the field of autism as though they invented it). McKinnon actually did them a favour by highlighting their security flaws - they can now attend to it before harm is done.

Even if the CPS decide to prosecute him here I think the longest he could get is 5 years, he could have got 60 in the US.

I don't see how they could anyway.

Great decision.

Hearing others at work (who have no idea I am almost certainly on the specturm) talk about this guy they seem to think he is playing the system and not AS. That is possible but if you read into what happened it seems a very haphazard way to plan your escape from justice.

1) Wait 3 years
2) Be interviewed about the case by the media while showing occasional subtle signs of AS
3) Assume someone qualified in recognising AS in adults will identify your traits
4) Wait for that person to go out of their way and establish contact prompting you to investigate and seek a diagnosis.
5) Trick one of the worlds leading authorities on Aspergers into believing that you have a very specific and complex neurobiological disorder that many without would likely have trouble fully understanding...never-mind accurately mimicking to a diagnosable degree.
6) Indicate that you are depressed and a suicide risk...something you could have managed regardless of AS.

I suppose it is possible he is faking (I guess), but, if you want to add credibility to a suicide threat, why select a condition which would have to have evidence going right back to early childhood? Why not select something that can develop later in life such as schizophrenia?

I really think that the real story is being missed here... The US have a massive, powerful global military computer network which can be easily penetrated and damaged by an ex-hairdresser with a developmental disorder sitting in a bedsit in his dressing gown ...What happens when bigger world players give it a go?

I don't think it is a valid excuse to say there was no malicious intent. Hacking is still hacking. If a burglar broke into your home, walked around and had a look, and then walked back out again without taking anything, you would still report them to the police on the grounds that they had committed the crime of breaking and entering. They may not have committed robbery, but breaking and entering is still a crime.

I don't know much about cyber laws but I expect hacking works the same way. Even if he didn't steal any files or delete anything (which, actually, they claim he did, but he denies it) then hacking is still hacking - and hacking the Pentagon's database is very foolish indeed. It's a huge big deal - much bigger than hacking, say, an online retailer, or a gaming website, or a private enterprise. So I don't think that "there was no malicious intent" is a valid excuse at all.

I don't think the reasoning that "he might kill himself if we extradite him" is a valid reason to prevent extradition, either. In my view the only valid reason would be if he had been assessed and declared to be mentally ret*d or unaware that what he did was wrong. Assuming he knows it was wrong, he ought to face up to the consequences. If every criminal were spared jail on the grounds that it might make them want to kill themselves, there would be nobody ever sent to jail. You will always be able to think of hypothetical reasons for not jailing somebody, won't you? Seems illogical to me.

I don't agree with the seeming implication here that we should all stand up for him just because he has Asperger's. I will never automatically stand up for somebody and take their side just because I supposedly have something in common with them. I will always analyse what they did and stand up against it if I consider it to be wrong.

The only valid reason for not extraditing him would be if he was not aware at the time of doing the hacking that what he was doing was wrong, and since we do not know him personally, we cannot know either way. All we can do is make assumptions - and they might be wrong. Perhaps he knew it was wrong, perhaps he didn't. Who knows?

Also I don't agree with the people saying "he did the Pentagon a favour." I bet you wouldn't be saying that if it was your website that had been broken into, would you?

this is great news.

shame for Babar Ahmad though for not being white/autistic/cuddly enough :/