McKinnon to be extradited

[RichardCranium]

And if he had, in all likelihood he would have been sent down for 1-2 years...

Nope. He would have been sent to Guantanamo Bay to be tortured and photographed in sexually compromising positions and then probably got the 70 years they were seeking.

[AtW]

All the yanks had to do was put some passwords on their internet-connected secret defence admin accounts.

I can leave my car keys in my car with running engine whilst going to pay for fuel, this might be stupid on my behalf, but this in no way would make anyone who jumps into car to steal it any less criminal. Negligence on my behalf in this case would invalidate insurance claim, however I'd still be able to pursue the criminal for damages and such criminal would have committed criminal act anyway.

The biggest cost that this guy will cause is to someone decent who needs such support in the future but won't get it.

[AtW]

Nope. He would have been sent to Guantanamo Bay to be tortured and photographed in sexually compromising positions and then probably got the 70 years they were seeking.

He was offered deal in the USA, he'd get 4 years and would be back home in 2: he declined and decided to go very public in his fight, so now with all that cost the USA is perfectly entitled in my view to get him down for as long as they can under their laws.

[centurian]

Nope. He would have been sent to Guantanamo Bay to be tortured and photographed in sexually compromising positions and then probably got the 70 years they were seeking.

Hardly. He never was a terrorist - and the US accepted that. Sending him to GitMo would have been the worst possible PR disaster the US could have concocted.

And whatever you might think of the Yanks - they're not that stupid.

I'm sure what they wanted was for him to be seen to pay a price for his actions with some jail time, publicly state what a twunt he was and then assist the US in plugging their systems. Then they'd send him packing home.

[centurian]

He was offered deal in the USA, he'd get 4 years and would be back home in 2: he declined and decided to go very public in his fight, so now with all that cost the USA is perfectly entitled in my view to get him down for as long as they can under their laws.

Really ? Didn't know he was actually offered a deal. 4 years is a tad steeper than I was expecting, but still not too unreasonable.

And if US TV law drama's are anything to go by, if you turn down the deal, they do go in strong.

Bugger should have taken it... would have been long over by now...

[RichardCranium]

I can leave my car keys in my car with running engine whilst going to pay for fuel, this might be stupid on my behalf, but this in no way would make anyone who jumps into car to steal it any less criminal.

Not a valid analogy. He didn't steal anything.

A better analogy would be glueing a sign on a fully-laden bullion lorry saying "Try closing the back doors when you go for lunch, f**kwits."

To then charge that person the cost of going for ISO 9000 compliance to prove you have processes to lock the van is just silly.

[AtW]

Not a valid analogy. He didn't steal anything.

He caused damage, how big can be debated, but given high security contractors rates especially in defense sector I would not be suprised that it was hundreds of thousands of dollars. If he disputes damage figures then he should do that in court rather than free loading on taxpayer here and there.

[RichardCranium]

He was offered deal in the USA, he'd get 4 years and would be back home in 2

Link, please. I cannot find a reference to that.


What I can find is this sort of thing:

As America goes on the warpath against a daily battery of cyber attacks, his family and lawyers fear that he could be made an example in a Virginia courtroom should he lose his battle against being sent to the US.

He will be tried in the Eastern District of the state of Virginia, a jurisdiction that has a reputation for tough judges and sentencing policies.

Joel Sickler, head of the Justice Advocacy Group in Virginia, quoted examples of other prisoners in US prisons to argue that Mr McKinnon "will almost certainly be exposed to neglectful care".

And he only confessed because he was led to believe that would save him from extradition. Link. So that is an unsafe confession.

[AtW]

And he only confessed because he was led to believe that would save him from extradition. Link. So that is an unsafe confession.

Is he denying now what he did? Does not look like, so his confession is more than safe - what he is trying to play on is his alleged mental state, plus some rubbish about conspiracy that means nowt to courts. I am pretty sure that he is wrong on both counts.

[RichardCranium]

Link, please. I cannot find a reference to that.

Found it myself; I thought "plea bargaining" was something that only happened in TV dramas.

The LibDems have commented on it better than most online sites I can find:

The two-and-a-half year gap between McKinnon's arrest and the US extradition request also raises serious questions about the plea-bargaining process that took place in the intervening period. McKinnon could have done what the US wanted and pleaded guilty and waived his statutory extradition rights in exchange for a more lenient sentence and repatriation for sentence.

The result of this voluntary surrender might have been a three to four-year sentence for non-terrorist offences and speedy repatriation to the UK. However, McKinnon chose to exercise his right to resist extradition. As a result, he is faced with a possible 45-60 year prison sentence without parole for terrorism and no repatriation. He has effectively been blackmailed by the US authorities to plead guilty.

Having exercised these rights, the US authorities are now categorising McKinnon's behaviour as (cyber-)terrorism. There is a real risk of him being detained, both pre-trial and in the event of a conviction, for a long time in a "Supermax" high-security prison.

These coercive tactics must surely be contrary to the tenets of any fair legal system, and amount to an abuse of extradition. The High Court rightly described the threat of withholding repatriation if McKinnon refused to surrender as "anathema", and viewed the way the US authorities conducted plea bargaining with McKinnon in London with "distaste".

This coercive plea bargaining is an abuse of our judicial process.