Mmmm, and who thinks that there will be similar helath issues for all sorts of people in the future.
Extradition should not have been refused on the grounds of his health, but on the grounds that he is a Brit, who committed the act in the UK, and therefore it should be dealt with under UK law.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 16 Oct 12 at 15:30
|
I think the decision was taken on the basis of his human rights:
May: "After careful consideration of all of the relevant material, I have concluded that Mr McKinnon's extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon's human rights."
He's now facing the possibility of trial in the UK, so your second statement does also apply to the case.
Abu Hamza's substantial health issues don't seem to have (eventually) impeded his passage to Uncle Sam.
The government seems to have got both of these decisions correct. Well done to them.
|
>>would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life
The trouble is, how will you then deal with any extraditee who immediately claims they will commit suicide if they are sent to another country?
What happens if we do it anyway and they do commit suicide?
Also, would we refuse to send someone up to Birmingham for trial if we'd arrested them in Brighton if they threatened suicide?
The potential for suicide does not seem to me an appropriate reason for avoiding a lawful trial.
The issue should have been whether or not the aproach was proper in the first place.
I agree the results are correct, but its asking for trouble in the future if its not done in some objective and sustainable fashion.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 16 Oct 12 at 15:44
|
Trouble is, under current rules, I'm getting the impression that the approach was proper. Hence the need to use the human rights angle to save this poor man.
The rules over what is a proper approach, particularly from the USA, need urgent redrawing.
|
This is the Home Sec who re-cycled the myth of the Asylum Seeker's cat to discredit 'ooman rights' at last year's Tory conference. The irony of her using the Act/Convention to carry out a pre-election promise and to hurrahs form the Daily Mail is greatly savoured!!
Seriously this is a bit of a one off/own facts case. It's not enough for there to be a threat of suicide. There was sound evidence of McKinnon's Aspergers, his depressive illness and their effects from indpendent medical experts.
The promise of a giving a court the oportunity to designate a forum where an offence under UK law has been committed looks good though. Whether any of this will help O'Dwyer, awaiting deportation for copyright offences, is doubtful.
|
|
The US should be delighted that it was McKinnon who demonstrated the vulnerability of their computer systems and not some malevolent organisation.
|
>> not some malevolent organisation.
I dunno. They might have got there first and kept it to themselves.
|
|
Poor man my ar*e. He knew exactly what he was doing but seeks to hide from the consequences.
|
|
What did Gary find out some secret UFO program? Love to know the truth.
|
>>He knew exactly what he was doing but seeks to hide from the consequences.
Never been an issue with him being dealt with by the UK courts.
Being shipped to the US on trumped-up terrorism-based "Patriot Act" ***** on the other hand...
Also, if anyone doesn't think this has all been OK'd between us and the Americans needs their heads examined.. "here's Hamza et al, but we want McKinnon"
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 19 Oct 12 at 00:49
|
|
Yes, bad agreement - should've sent them both over there.
|
McKinnon:
''I was convinced, and there was good evidence to show, that certain secretive parts of the American government intelligence agencies did have access to crashed extra-terrestrial technology which could, in these days, save us in the form of a free, clean, pollution-free energy."
Really? what 'good evidence to show' ?? Hacking is illegal and he did it time and time again. Aspergers is no defence. I've a friend with Aspergers and he heads the non-food department of a large UK supermarket.
|
>
>> Really? what 'good evidence to show' ?? Hacking is illegal and he did it time
>> and time again. Aspergers is no defence. I've a friend with Aspergers and he heads
>> the non-food department of a large UK supermarket.
My son had a friend who had Aspergers. He killed himself last year. What was your point?
He should not have been extradited to the states because if a lad with Aspergers can hack in to their computers, they should have had better security. HAd it been the other way round would he have been extradited? no way.
The current agreement with the yanks is far too one way oriented.
|
>> I've a friend with Aspergers and he heads
>> the non-food department of a large UK supermarket.
>>
Aspergers isn't measles, flu or the loss of a limb; its a spectrum. Lots of different manifestations from train/plane spotting to a complete inability to relate to others.
And being 'under arrest' for 10 yrs with threat of deportation to a country that's much more foreign than France or Germany doesn't do much for your mental health either.
|
Then don't hack into another nation's computers. Repeatedly.
As for not going to court because their systems weren't secure, perhaps burglars shoudln't go to court because your house isn't secure. What's your point? Offence not triable until you prove a level of security or sweep the law aside and make a decision based on sympathy?
|
Maybe we should extadite anyone who has commited adultery with an Iranian national to Iran - bit of stoning didn't do no-one no harm.
|
How about a degree of culpability.
Anyway, the bloke was not a terrorist, he blew no-one up, sold the secrets he found no-where, gained nothing and caused no harm except sever embarrassment to the yanks.
Whats your beef anyway, the way you are going off on one you would have thought he had been going through your house nicking your PMT pills.
> make a decision based on sympathy?
No - make one seriousness. It fails that test
|
>> As for not going to court because their systems weren't secure, perhaps burglars shoudln't go
>> to court because your house isn't secure.
Court is one thing, insurance is another. I doubt my insurer would pay for theft if I'd left the patio doors open. If one guy working from a PC in his bedroom got that far how proof was the US against the might of the intelligence service of [insert state of your choice].
|
Am I alone in thinking his mother's worth a second glance?
|
>> Probably, yes.
Where's BBD when you need him :-P
|
>> Am I alone in thinking his mother's worth a second glance?
>>
If there was ever a comment about MILFs and "I would", I would never have bet money on it coming from there in this scenario!
|
|
MILF = Mothers I'd Like to Facebook??
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 16 Oct 12 at 22:52
|
|
Or if it comes to the Northern Ireland Secretary Ministers I'd Like to ........
|
Whatever the rights or wrongs of the particular case, this seems like a political decision to me, aren't many of the campaigners / media outlets supporting this particular cause in the same 'political camp' as the current home secretary ?
To use legislation which the home secretary herself criticised only last week appears crass to me, expedient maybe but crass nonetheless.
Then there's the accusation of double standards regarding one of the people extradited last week to the US as an accused terrorist, a UK citizen with a similar medical condition albeit accused of a more obviously repugnant crime.
In all honesty, (to me) the potential punishment in the US doesn't appear to fit the (already admitted) crime as I understand it and I wonder whether that is what proves problematic for an extradition - handing a UK citizen over to a foreign power who will impose a disproportionate punishment by our standards of justice ? This is the case with capital punishment so I wonder whether it can be extended to other situations with the UK setting the maximum tariff? Just thinking out loud...
I feel that justice does still need to be done, I have a sneaking admiration for this guy's technical prowess but surely he should face some justice for his misdemeanors to avoid accusations of double standards?
|
|
I'm still not clear which of his human rights Ms My thinks would be breached. Right to life? Fair trial? Are we seriously suggesting that we don't recognise teh US as offering a fair trial (in general terms)??
|
Woodster,
Theresa May's statement yesterday is quite explicit that it relies on Article 3 of the European Convention - inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_3_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
Joshua Rozenberg expands in the Gruaniad.
www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/oct/16/gary-mckinnon-theresa-may-human-rights
TBH I suspect ECHR is being used to give her cover for a political decision based on commitments given in opposition.
Right decision for wrong reasons?
|
|
Certainly rather flimsy to suggest inhuman or degrading treatment, although there are serious questions over Guantanamo. Hardly in the same category though.
|
>> Certainly rather flimsy to suggest inhuman or degrading treatment, although there are serious questions over
>> Guantanamo. Hardly in the same category though.
Article 3 would cover sending somebody to a possible sentence of judicial execution or otherwise where death was likely . There was medical evidence that McKinnon would try to kill himself if extradited to US. Unlike the articles on right to private life or freedom of press where there are balances to be struck Article 3 is absolute.
The US is not England with a funny accent. Once you get involved in its judicial process or politics its a very foreign place.
TBH I think Mrs May exhibits a remarkable degree of chutzpah in relying on ECHR/HRA to carry out her pre-election comittment to stop this extradition but full marks to her for not wimping out 'on legal advice'.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 17 Oct 12 at 21:14
|
The Americans are furious that a UK based hacker broke into their "secure" systems and , I think fully intended to make an example of him. Justice was not part of the equation.
The argument, on their side is that the offence was committed on their soil so he should be tried in the USA.
In fact, I believe that McKinnon never left the UK while hacking this system.
Surely, any crime was committed here, even if its effect was seen elsewhere.
If he is to be tried anywhere it should be in the UK.
|
>> The Americans are furious that a UK based hacker broke into their "secure" systems and
>> , I think fully intended to make an example of him. Justice was not part
>> of the equation.
>> The argument, on their side is that the offence was committed on their soil so
>> he should be tried in the USA.
>> In fact, I believe that McKinnon never left the UK while hacking this system.
>> Surely, any crime was committed here, even if its effect was seen elsewhere.
>> If he is to be tried anywhere it should be in the UK.
>>
And the same applies to Barbar Ahmed
|
But he's a terrorist.
How do I know?
Because he looks like one.
/rolls eyes
|
So, who thinks "ooman rights" is a bad idea today? - No FM2R
