Hacker loses final appeal against extradition to US

[Francois Cellier]

From the Independent

Hacker loses final appeal against extradition to US

Home Secretary turns down Asperger's sufferer who broke into military computers

By Lewis Smith
Friday, 27 November 2009


A last-ditch appeal to prevent a computer hacker from being extradited to the United States has been dismissed by the Home Secretary.

Gary McKinnon and his family were told yesterday that Alan Johnson is to allow the extradition to go ahead after refusing to block it on medical grounds.

Mr McKinnon, who has Asperger's syndrome, is accused by the US authorities of breaking into military and Nasa computers. He has admitted hacking but maintains he was looking only for evidence of UFOs.

He was told in a letter from the Home Secretary that the extradition would now "proceed forthwith" after finding that there was "nothing incompatible" between extradition and Mr McKinnon's human rights.

The family said last night that Mr McKinnon, who could be sentenced to up to 60 years in prison in the US, was "at risk of suicide" after being told there will be no 11th hour reprieve. His mother, Janis Sharp, was "extremely worried" about her son's mental state and said the Government and Mr Johnson should "hang their heads in shame" for caving in to American pressure.

She said: "This is a cruel and miserable decision. To force a peaceful, vulnerable, misguided UFO fanatic like Gary thousands of miles away from his much-needed support network is barbaric. If the severity of Gary's medical condition isn't sufficient to prevent his extradition, I can't imagine what is."

She added: "This government is terrified of speaking up to America, and now they are allowing vulnerable people to be pursued for non-violent crime when they should be going after terrorists. Why are they doing this?"

Karen Todner, the hacker's solicitor, said there was still hope. "It's a devastating blow but we are not going to give up. We are going to issue judicial review proceedings. We normally have three months to do this but have now been given seven days to issue."

In July Mr McKinnon went to the High Court in an attempt to get the extradition order overturned but was told being sent for trial in the US was "a lawful and proportionate response" to his actions. A month ago he was refused permission to take his case to the Supreme Court when judges decided he had "no real prospect" of success.

The case has highlighted concerns about the Extradition Act 2003 which critics maintain erodes the rights of individuals in Britain without a similar concession being given in the US. They argue that Britons can be extradited without any assessment of the evidence against them and on cases so weak that they would never reach court at home.

The US authorities only have to produce an arrest warrant to show that the person is wanted. In contrast, if British prosecutors want to extradite someone from the US they have to demonstrate likely guilt.

The Home Secretary has been given assurances by the US authorities that Mr McKinnon's medical needs will be met. Mr Johnson said he had considered carefully the case but rejected it. "I am clear that the information is not materially different from that placed before the High Court earlier this year and does not demonstrate that sending Mr McKinnon to the United States would breach his human rights," he said.

"It is also clear from the proceedings to date that Mr McKinnon will not, if convicted, serve any of his sentence in a supermax prison. Finally, should Mr McKinnon be extradited, charged and convicted in the US and seek repatriation to the UK to serve a custodial sentence, the Government will of course progress his application at the very earliest opportunity."

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, described the extradition treaty as unfair and Mr Johnson's decision as "shameful".

Mr McKinnon is said by the US authorities to have been responsible for "the biggest military hack of all time". He is said to have caused $700,000 worth of damage and forced the US Army's entire network to be shut down for 24 hours.

[Francois Cellier]

More information needed. Why would Britain sign an extradition treaty that is asymmetrical? Does any one of our British posters have more information on this issue?

[Dufrel]

I just wanted to take a peek around is not a viable defense, off to jail he goes (and good riddance).

[sarmajor]

The case has highlighted concerns about the Extradition Act 2003 which critics maintain erodes the rights of individuals in Britain without a similar concession being given in the US. They argue that Britons can be extradited without any assessment of the evidence against them and on cases so weak that they would never reach court at home.

Does not the British government have any self respect?

So many of these treaties are onesided ............. caving in to US demands

In similar fashion the US will not allow its accused war criminals to be tried in International courts.

One day the boot may be on the other foot.

[Suraklin]

I believe we signed because our PM at the time was basically whoring us to the US post-9/11. One of several areas where Blair was acting more as a US client state rather than a British PM.

Basically this guy is getting screwed because the Pentagon has egg on it's faces because a British bloke with a mental disease can hack their security... perhaps they should focus on making it better rather than pouting and stamping their delicate little feet?

[CatWoman]

As far as I know the only times we have refused to extride someone to the US is when that person faces the death penalty. Personally i don't think having Aspergers is an excuse. I know many Aspergers sufferers and they all know right from wrong.

[roadkill]

I believe we signed because our PM at the time was basically whoring us to the US post-9/11.

Correct. The criterion for extradition is a claim that the offender has caused at least $X thousand of damage, but the Americans are required to produce no evidence that that is the case. The claim is that:

... he deleted critical files from operating systems, which shut down the US Army’s Military District of Washington network of 2,000 computers for 24 hours, as well as deleting US Navy Weapons logs, rendering a naval base's network of 300 computers inoperable after the September 11th terrorist attacks. They claim the cost of tracking and correcting the problems he caused was $700,000.

McKinnon denies that he caused any such damage. Furthermore, given that these were supposedly high security computer systems, how could a lone amateur hacker with a computer and a dial-up modem in his bedroom penetrate them?

Answer: they were all running the Unix operating system and none of the sys admins had reset the default admin password. McKinnon simply ran a script searching for computers whose security was hopelessly inadequate.

I think that is at the heart of the US charges: they are so fucking embarrassed that they want to divert the story onto a scapegoat.

The UK government is shamefully playing along.

[emeraldorc]

Another example of American Imperialism. Britain should learn to protect their own. He hacked the defence network of another country, so what? He is home and free to do what he wants, since when do we start being governed by US law. The US embassy won't even pay the congestion charge, so much for respecting UK law.

In my opinion we should thank him and recruit him into MI5, I am sure they would like to crack the US mainframe. Frankly Bush, Obama, Clinton, I don't care, fed up with this US imperialism.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by emeraldorc

Another example of American Imperialism. Britain should learn to protect their own. He hacked the defence network of another country, so what? He is home and free to do what he wants, since when do we start being governed by US law.

I'd be willing to bet it's (hacking) against your law as well.

There are many things you are not free to do in your own home, whether here or Britain.

[emeraldorc]

Originally Posted by clownboy

I'd be willing to bet it's (hacking) against your law as well.

There are many things you are not free to do in your own home, whether here or Britain.

What about the American soldier who lured a 13 year old British girl to America to live with him? This is a crime in Britain but America won't extradite. If it were reversed he will never set foot in a British court. Us Brits are spineless cowards.

[Suraklin]

Perhaps in light of the ever so 'Special Relationship' that our PMs delude themselves into believing we have with the USA we should deal with such treaties more intelligently and just cancel them as soon as the USA acts against the spirit or letter of such an agreement... usually before the ink is fully dry in recent experience...

The incident with the US paedo soldier was pretty worrying... not just because of the refusal to play ball but also because of the type of crime they are prepared to facilitate in the name of sovereignty... pretty vile... but then ask the people of Okinawa for their stories on this subject and prepare to feel sick (or possibly aroused if you work at the Pentagon)...

[Ian Bradford, UK]

On the face of it the agreement looks unbalanced. The issue gets really interesting with business. I'm sure I've heard of recent cases of the US authorities, arresting or impeeding UK businessmen who are competing in the US with domestic suppliers. Didn't they try to pin charges on BAE directors for bribing people in the middle east, when their businessmen where probably doing exactly the same.

[emeraldorc]

Originally Posted by Ian Bradford, UK

On the face of it the agreement looks unbalanced. The issue gets really interesting with business. I'm sure I've heard of recent cases of the US authorities, arresting or impeeding UK businessmen who are competing in the US with domestic suppliers. Didn't they try to pin charges on BAE directors for bribing people in the middle east, when their businessmen where probably doing exactly the same.

To be honest in business the lines are blurred. Many businesses in the US are multinational both Americans and Brits working together, a company like BAE has both US and Brit nationals on its board. BAE had a lot to do with American defense systems as well as several British defence systems.

It's a poor example. I think these agreements must be looked at when it comes to ordinary citizens. The idea of British citizens being sent abroad for trials in US courts for actions committed on British soil appears like rendition to me. It is up to the UK government to try them in a British court. I can see why some countries support none extradition. If they want him so bad let them come and get him.

In the 80's Umaru Dikko, Nigeria's Transport minister stole £2m from the Nigerian government and fled to Britain. He was given around the clock MI5 security, even his made was undercover. The Nigerian government attempted a covert kidnapping, he was put in a crate and drugged, destined for Lagos, the diplomatic package was intercepted at the last minute after a nation wide man hunt, it was spotted because it had holes which allowed him to breathe, it led to a diplomatic incident that involved BA flights in Nigeria to be grounded until all Nigerian airways flights were released. Today we say we have extradition treaties. We did then with Nigeria but Britain was a safe haven for all running from persecution of any kind.

[Sir Digalot]

had it not been DoD then i do not think anyone would have given a shit, however since it is a very sensative area they decided to make an example of him.

simply put, he should NOT have done it.

whether he deleted something or not, is irrelevant really, he knew what he did was wrong, he was caught, he has to pay the price.

[Ian Bradford, UK]

I don't disagree with extradition per se, I do disagree with the lop sided agreement with the US. There is a growing feeling in the UK that our relations with the US are very lop sided in general.

BAE systems was not such a bad example, yes it is multinational but is UK based and I believe that behind the scenes it was politicians in the pockets of BAEs American competitors that were stirring up trouble.

[Sir Digalot]

good the uk can become the 51st state and save me a few grand in citizenship fees *LOL*

[Ian Bradford, UK]

my sides are splitting.

[Sir Digalot]

lucky for you there is an nhs to stitch them back together

[emeraldorc]

Originally Posted by Ian Bradford, UK

I don't disagree with extradition per se, I do disagree with the lop sided agreement with the US. There is a growing feeling in the UK that our relations with the US are very lop sided in general.

BAE systems was not such a bad example, yes it is multinational but is UK based and I believe that behind the scenes it was politicians in the pockets of BAEs American competitors that were stirring up trouble.

A lot you don't know about BAE. Do you really believe BAE is under British control? I beg to differ. Until we bring everything concerning defence under government control we will always be Daddy's little girl.