2 ms·

You've actually exactly made the popular case (from the UK point of view) why he shouldn't be extradited. There's a substantial belief here that the US is deman

by iuguy 16y ago

You've actually exactly made the popular case (from the UK point of view) why he shouldn't be extradited. There's a substantial belief here that the US is demanding extradition under false pretences and that there will be a bait and switch resulting in him getting an orange jumpsuit and (to paraphrase Harold and Kumar go to white castle 2) a cock meat sandwich. What needs to be understood is that what the people think is not the same as what the government of the day signs up to or even future governments of the day may have to deal with. Thanks for posting the indictment. That's actually exactly the sort of info that needs to be posted here for people to understand what's really happening. It's easy to get it wrong. Just look for the indictment of Moazzam Begg. There isn't one. It makes it really easy to paint a story that the Americans do not respect the rule of law when you quote that case. Bear in mind that McKinnon was around the same time. It's a case of fear. Whether it's deserved fear or not is irrelevant, the fact is that those wanting McKinnon to stay in the UK can capitalise on it. I'm reminded of the Louise Woodward case. This was a case where someone had been accused of doing something horrific but was British and as such portrayed differently in the British media compared to the US media. IN the eyes of the US media she was a child murderer. In the eyes of the UK media she had just accidentally committed acts that resulted in Matthew Eppens death. The fact is that her actions may or may not have led to his death, but when the death of a child is involved no-one stands up and says 'maybe we should all take a step back and think rationally about this'. Likewise with this case, it's not going to happen, there are too many vested interests involved.

tptacek 16y ago
I acknowledge that the fears of UK citizens are based on good faith concerns. What I don't acknowledge is that they are reasonable. In this case you have a clear-cut instance of someone who has all but confessed to the crime --- a crime recognized by both jurisdictions --- and an extradition demand made under the aegis of an actual criminal indictment in a US civilian court; an extradition demand that would probably have passed muster even under the egregiously unfair terms of the 1970's extradition treaty the UK held with us. The arguments being made against it basically amount to taking every bit of anecdotal evidence about the unfairness of the US criminal justice system, in the absence of any countervailing evidence about the unfairness of the UK criminal justice system, and then attempting to apply it to this case. This case, mind you, that will almost certainly end in a guy serving 1-3 years in minimum security, as one of the most closely watched inmates of the US prison system. Again: it's not like people haven't been accused and convicted of breaking into our fabulously insecure DoD networks in the past.
- iuguy 16y ago
  But surely that's the point, that their good faith concerns are unreasonable. It's completely clear cut - the guy broke into systems that no normal human being would go at. The level of security is irrelevant - if you commence a military act, surely a military response is appropriate, no? Your points are completely valid but you're missing the view that is brought forward, that he's one of ours, he's not that bad a guy, and doesn't deserve the same as people in gitmo. I don't agree with the view and I think that all things being equal he should serve a small amount of time in the US, but thats not going to happen. Either he's going to serve a large amount of time in the US (from the perspective of the Brits) or he's not going there. It's especially interesting for me because this happened before with some inside traders at natwest. It'll be interesting to see if this happens again.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I worry that we're talking past each other, because I don't think the US thinks he deserves the same as people at Gitmo either.
    - iuguy 16y ago
      I think you're right (that we're talking past each other). The UK perception seems to be based on a lack of assurances that he won't end up in an orange jumpsuit, as fetching as he may look in one. The US is unable to provide said assurances because the people looking to extradite him are not in a position to make that type of a deal (as far as I know, if I'm wrong please say so). Bear in mind that at the time he committed said acts the US would have generally considered it an act of hacking, whereas now it could be considered an act of terrorism or even an act by an enemy non-combatant. The grey area seems to be the thing that's causing the block. If the US said, "He'll serve 5 years in a minimum security jail for hacking" then I'm sure the resistance would be over.

by iuguy 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

I acknowledge that the fears of UK citizens are based on good faith concerns. What I don't acknowledge is that they are reasonable. In this case you have a clear-cut instance of someone who has all but confessed to the crime --- a crime recognized by both jurisdictions --- and an extradition demand made under the aegis of an actual criminal indictment in a US civilian court; an extradition demand that would probably have passed muster even under the egregiously unfair terms of the 1970's extradition treaty the UK held with us. The arguments being made against it basically amount to taking every bit of anecdotal evidence about the unfairness of the US criminal justice system, in the absence of any countervailing evidence about the unfairness of the UK criminal justice system, and then attempting to apply it to this case. This case, mind you, that will almost certainly end in a guy serving 1-3 years in minimum security, as one of the most closely watched inmates of the US prison system. Again: it's not like people haven't been accused and convicted of breaking into our fabulously insecure DoD networks in the past.

iuguy 16y ago
But surely that's the point, that their good faith concerns are unreasonable. It's completely clear cut - the guy broke into systems that no normal human being would go at. The level of security is irrelevant - if you commence a military act, surely a military response is appropriate, no? Your points are completely valid but you're missing the view that is brought forward, that he's one of ours, he's not that bad a guy, and doesn't deserve the same as people in gitmo. I don't agree with the view and I think that all things being equal he should serve a small amount of time in the US, but thats not going to happen. Either he's going to serve a large amount of time in the US (from the perspective of the Brits) or he's not going there. It's especially interesting for me because this happened before with some inside traders at natwest. It'll be interesting to see if this happens again.
- tptacek 16y ago
  I worry that we're talking past each other, because I don't think the US thinks he deserves the same as people at Gitmo either.
  - iuguy 16y ago
    I think you're right (that we're talking past each other). The UK perception seems to be based on a lack of assurances that he won't end up in an orange jumpsuit, as fetching as he may look in one. The US is unable to provide said assurances because the people looking to extradite him are not in a position to make that type of a deal (as far as I know, if I'm wrong please say so). Bear in mind that at the time he committed said acts the US would have generally considered it an act of hacking, whereas now it could be considered an act of terrorism or even an act by an enemy non-combatant. The grey area seems to be the thing that's causing the block. If the US said, "He'll serve 5 years in a minimum security jail for hacking" then I'm sure the resistance would be over.