British 'hacker' fears Guantanamo

[ed316]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
British 'hacker' fears Guantanamo
McKinnon Interview (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3681938.stm)A British man accused of being behind the largest ever hack of US government computer networks could end up at Guantanamo Bay, his lawyer has claimed.
Gary McKinnon, from London, denies causing $700,000 (£400,000) damage to military and Nasa systems in 2001-2.
Bow Street Magistrates' Court was told the 40-year-old feared a prosecution might take place under US anti-terror laws if it agreed to his extradition. The US said Mr McKinnon had assurances he would be tried in a federal court.


But defence lawyers said his human rights could be breached if he was sent to the US.
Mr McKinnon was remanded on bail until 10 May when District Judge Nicholas Evans will rule whether the extradition will go ahead.
'Administrative revenge'
Much of the hearing was taken up with argument over whether Mr McKinnon would be subject to Military Order Number One - a legal procedure which enables the president to specify that suspects can be detained indefinitely.
Mark Summers, representing the US government, said there was no precedent to suggest the US would breach its promises, and the court should take on "faith" the undertaking.

The US Government wants to extract some kind of species of administrative revenge because he exposed their security systems as weak and helpless as they were
Edmund Lawson
Defence lawyer


Defence lawyer Edmund Lawson said the US Embassy in London had provided an "unsigned and anonymous" diplomatic note and said Mr McKinnon was still "vulnerable" to such an order.
He said the US had not given a guarantee he will face a federal court trial.
"The US Government wants to extract some kind of species of administrative revenge because he exposed their security systems as weak and helpless as they were," Mr Lawson added.
Mr McKinnon is accused of hacking into computers in 14 states, including at the Pentagon and naval weapon station Earle. At an earlier hearing his lawyers suggested his actions were not malicious - he had been trying to expose lax computer security and access what he believed was withheld information about UFOs.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/4905036.stm

Published: 2006/04/12 22:20:17 GMT

© BBC MMVI

[WarriorMonk]

hang him high...

[Laworkerbee]

IF he did no damage then perhaps he should recieve a thank you for exposing weakness that an enemy could have exploited

[ogukuo72]

It's like a burglar breaking into your house, gets caught, and then claims that you should be grateful to him for exposing your security weak spots. Are you going to let him off even if he causes no damage?

Or let say someone tampers with the brakes of your car, and you caught him. Are you going to let him off?

Sending him off to Gitmo is abit exaggerated. The defence lawyer is probably trying to fight extradiction by using this possibility because he knows he has a weak case. So he's playing on fear rather than using the law.

[Abolith]

IF he did no damage then perhaps he should recieve a thank you for exposing weakness that an enemy could have exploited


this guy is a black hat and he desrves what he gets for cracking computer networks of a foreign gov.



he had been trying to expose lax computer security and access what he believed was withheld information about UFOs.

he is also a moronic nutjob.

[Angel]

Human rights? I don't think terrorists count as human beings therefore they really don't have rights aside from the No-Bag Limit rule.

[Dalamara]

He did cause damage. He caused $700,000 dollars worth of damage.



Gary McKinnon, from London, denies causing $700,000 (£400,000) damage to military and Nasa systems in 2001-2.

[tsuri]

With which justification should he be sent to Guantanamo? He is a Computer Criminal and as such would go to an ordinary prison.

What would he want in a facility that collects people from warzones without a clear legal status and terrorists?

[moughoun]

Human rights? I don't think terrorists count as human beings therefore they really don't have rights aside from the No-Bag Limit rule.
ah the good old "terrorist" clause that seem's to be used for everything now, he hacked a computer to find out about UFO's........he pissed on the lawn outside the Pentagon.....he's a terrorist,:roll:, he's a stupid moron..criminal!!, Jesus if your looking for people to call terrorist's how about the couple of thousand NORAID supporters you have in the US already funding the IRA?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

ah the good old "terrorist" clause that seem's to be used for everything now, he hacked a computer to find out about UFO's........he pissed on the lawn outside the Pentagon.....he's a terrorist,:roll:, he's a stupid moron..criminal!!, Jesus if your looking for people to call terrorist's how about the couple of thousand NORAID supporters you have in the US already funding the IRA?

Now THAT is the voice of reason

[CMNot]

If they had any sense they'd be offering a contract...

[ogukuo72]

Even within the statement provided by the Defence Lawyer, there's no mention that this hacker will be sent to Gitmo. And it is not the place of a diplomatic mission to make commitments with regards to the prosecution of a criminal case.

If the defence lawyer has made a request that the mission make a commitment that his client should not be sent to Gitmo, even if there has never been any intention to do so on the US's part, the US Embassy cannot make a commitment one way or the other.

Of course, the defense lawyer would seize on this to try to make hay out of nothing.

[martinexsquaddie]

he might be a great hacker.
although in his own words was smoking Way too much cannabis at the time and obssesed about finding info about UFO's.
if I was incharge of network security I'm not sure I'd want this bloke questioned as I 'd have an awful lot of explaining to do :(

[ogukuo72]

Hmmm. You might have a point. Security officers of the US government would no doubt be interested in how he did it, and would want to interrogate him. Might not be possible to do this if he's treated as a normal criminal.

[CMNot]

Wonder if he could get me a username and password into brianabanks.com.....

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I like this new spirit of legal reciprocation I just hope it works when we want some IRA terror sponsors for trial in the UK next time something goes bang.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I like this new spirit of legal reciprocation I just hope it works when we want some IRA terror sponsors for trial in the UK next time something goes bang.

Fcuk that make it retrospective :)

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Fcuk that make it retrospective :)Aye, agreed but they are such sissy pants when it comes to doing anything about NORAID and the Bhoys.
:)

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I like this new spirit of legal reciprocation I just hope it works when we want some IRA terror sponsors for trial in the UK next time something goes bang.I spoke to soon.:oops:


US snubs Britain over *** criminals
From Tom Baldwin in Washington
April 13 2006

BRITAIN and the United States were locked in a deepening diplomatic dispute last night over Washington’s failure to implement a mutual extradition agreement that Parliament approved three years ago.
Congress’s refusal to ratify the deal means that Britain cannot prosecute criminals residing in the US, including *** offenders and paedophiles.



America has sought the extradition of 44 alleged offenders since 2003, and 12 have already been sent to the US. The extradition of several others has been approved but is awaiting appeal. In contrast, Britain extradited only five suspects from the US in the same period under the previous thirty-year-old extradition treaty, including just one in 2005.

Ministers have repeatedly raised the issue with their US counterparts, and Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, protested again when he met Alberto Gonzales, the US Attorney-General, in London yesterday.

Diplomats led by Sir David Manning, Ambassador to the US, have also held about 30 meetings on the issue on Capitol Hill in recent months. But pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Indeed, America’s failure to abide by its side of the deal is fast becoming a political embarrassment for a British government often accused of showing undue deference to Washington.

A senior US official told The Times yesterday that the Administration was sympathetic to Britain’s concerns and hinted that a fresh attempt to force the treaty through the Senate would be made within weeks.

The official said that the problem had been caused by the influential Irish-American lobby, which is worried that the treaty could be used to pursue IRA suspects. Senators are worried about alienating any section of voters before November’s congressional elections. British diplomats have emphasised that, after the Good Friday agreement, Britain has little interest in pursuing IRA suspects.




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2073035,00.html

[fargo]

Typical. Scratch my back and I'll roll over and go to sleep. Nice.

[ed316]

This guy is not going to be sent to Gitmo. His lawyer is using fear to stop the extradition. He will just be any criminal and sent to a federal prison where there is no parole.

[CountZero]

wouldnt the most logical step be to offer him amnesty in return for working for them?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

wouldnt the most logical step be to offer him amnesty in return for working for them?I think they know how he carried out the intrusions and the guy is total stoner. Funny thing was he was wasted a lot of the time he was making the intrusions.

[bluey]

he might be a great hacker.
although in his own words was smoking Way too much cannabis at the time and obssesed about finding info about UFO's.
if I was incharge of network security I'm not sure I'd want this bloke questioned as I 'd have an awful lot of explaining to do :(

Thing is though, by his own admission, he is NOT a great hacker and doesn't even know how to program! I saw an interview with him on channel 4 news a couple of days ago in which he said he basically just downloaded and used programs available on the internet to scan machines for blank login/passwords and to his amazement literally dozens of computers networked to the inner echelons of the Pentagon required NO password to access!

Calling him a terrorist is an absolute joke! At worst he's a bit of a conspiracy nut but I see nothing malicious in his motives. And the damage claims against him look deeply erroneous since all he did was leave a few messages mocking the nonexistent security at what should be some of the most secure locations on the planet.

The fact that someone like him was able to do what he did is very worrying and making him out to be some kind of "zomg terrorist super hacker" is merely an attempt to divert attention from the real scandal - that he was able to do it in the first place.

[Freibier]

If he's a brit, why would US laws apply to him?

[king_nothing100]

Hope he wins the case.

[Ayura]

This guy is not going to be sent to Gitmo. His lawyer is using fear to stop the extradition. He will just be any criminal and sent to a federal prison where there is no parole.


x2 Completely agree.


It's also a way for the press to make abit of Benjamins by involving the 'oh so' controversial Gitmo in the headlines.

[Ayura]

If he's a brit, why would US laws apply to him?


...Erm - I'm not exactly a barrister but I would assume it's because he breached an major security law in the Pentagon, which would naturally have the US laws apply to him. I could be wrong however.


Infact - anyone here with a good knowledge of law willing to explain this abit more?

[Hollis]

MY GUESS-Tamation..

Treaties between the USA and UK, probably has a extradition clause. That is why they want to extradite him to the USA, to faces the charges in a USA court. On the Internet one can commit a crime in another country and not necessary a crime where they live.

The UK can also ask that a person in the USA be extradicted and sent to them, for crimes there. In the USA, under state law, a state does not have jurisdiction in another state, so the same thing is done, a person commits a crime in Oregon, and moves to California, they can be extradicted... You need to check UK laws on extradiction when it is allowed, when it not allowed.




...Erm - I'm not exactly a barrister but I would assume it's because he breached an major security law in the Pentagon, which would naturally have the US laws apply to him. I could be wrong however.


Infact - anyone here with a good knowledge of law willing to explain this abit more?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The UK can also ask that a person in the USA be extradicted and sent to them, for crimes there.Asking ain't gettin.



US snubs Britain over *** criminals
From Tom Baldwin in Washington
April 13 2006

BRITAIN and the United States were locked in a deepening diplomatic dispute last night over Washington’s failure to implement a mutual extradition agreement that Parliament approved three years ago.
Congress’s refusal to ratify the deal means that Britain cannot prosecute criminals residing in the US, including *** offenders and paedophiles.



America has sought the extradition of 44 alleged offenders since 2003, and 12 have already been sent to the US. The extradition of several others has been approved but is awaiting appeal. In contrast, Britain extradited only five suspects from the US in the same period under the previous thirty-year-old extradition treaty, including just one in 2005.

Ministers have repeatedly raised the issue with their US counterparts, and Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, protested again when he met Alberto Gonzales, the US Attorney-General, in London yesterday.

Diplomats led by Sir David Manning, Ambassador to the US, have also held about 30 meetings on the issue on Capitol Hill in recent months. But pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Indeed, America’s failure to abide by its side of the deal is fast becoming a political embarrassment for a British government often accused of showing undue deference to Washington.

[Hollis]

Asking ain't gettin.


YEP!!!.................................

[BritSig]

The guys a UFO geek! The Brits should milk his knowledge if any and then hand him over to the sceptics for trial. We will want something in exchange, so knowing our government we will get 200 immigrants!!!!