Gary McKinnon
Right, can of worms - check. Can opener - check.
I think Gary McKinnon ought to be extradited to the US to stand trial on computer hacking charges. I may be sharing this position with some pretty unsavoury neocon sorts, and I hate to bandy phrases like "if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime" around willy-nilly, but it's what I honestly believe.
Of course, the man has Asperger's and therefore many are arguing (with great eloquence and passion, I might add) that he should be treated as a special case. I freely admit to not knowing a great deal about this complex condition. It's clear that sufferers have great problems with emotional and social interaction, as well as a tendency towards intense preoccupation with a narrow subject such as UFOs in McKinnon's case. I would argue that the question of intent with regards to this alleged crime, and such issues as whether the man is capable of distinguishing right from from wrong, is at the very best a grey area. Therefore, I would have to argue that this is a matter for the courts to decide, and as US property and interests were (allegedly) under threat then it should be dealt with on their side of the Atlantic.
My main problem with the coverage of the McKinnon saga has been that the facts of his individual case are too often blurred by people's negative opinions of the US, its legal system, and the supposedly imbalanced extradition treaty we signed with them in 2003. Quotes attributed to US officials about wishing to see Gary "fry" are certainly troubling, but we should remember that a legal system is independent of other executive branches. "The sentence that will be imposed by the US courts", said Lord Justice Stanley Burnton in Friday's high court judgment, "will take account of his diagnosis of Asperger's and the difficulties that he will in consequence face in a US prison."
Ah, say the doubters, even if that is true then their legal system is still flawed. I've never forgotten the coverage of the extradition of the so-called Natwest Three, when a carefully-orchestrated PR campaign convinced many people that the nasty Americans would degrade and humiliate those guys before locking them up Guantanamo-style and throwing away the key. As it turned out, they were each sentenced to 37 months in prison and allowed to complete the majority of their sentences in the UK.
McKinnon's alleged crimes are considered to be far more serious, of course. Still, a curious paradox exists whereby sections of the British media see any Brit arrested abroad to be at great risk of suffering draconian, unjust punishment, but at the same time our own justice system is accused of being far too lenient when it comes to sentencing. I wonder what their position would be if it was an American who was accused of hacking into our top-secret computer networks?
And the Extradition Act 2003 may well be unfairly weighted in favour of the Americans when it comes to the extradition of each other's citizens. Even so, being treated as a political football is surely not what McKinnon needs.
The other main argument is that McKinnon was ultimately doing the Americans a favour by showing them how vulnerable to attacks their computer systems were. Quite apart from the fact that it was never his intention, this would be a ludicrous argument if you applied it to other crimes. "Yeah your Honour, I broke into the house and robbed all their stuff to show them just how easy it was. Can I have a medal?" And the notion that the US government should be looking to employ Gary instead of imprisoning him is somewhat far-fetched considering his belief that they are engaged in a massive cover-up of a new "clean energy" source and employ a sinister cadre of "Non-Terrestrial Officers".
And so we go back to the question of whether this was a crime committed knowingly or not, on which I've made my feelings clear above. This doesn't mean that I don't feel sorry for Gary or his family, or that I think this is an entirely proportionate response by the Yanks. Perhaps it means that I'm guilty of retaining a naive belief that justice will eventually out, despite there being plenty of recent evidence to the contrary.
On the other hand, maybe those who hold the US in such low esteem are guilty of sharing the same kind of conspiracy mentality as poor Gary.
I think Gary McKinnon ought to be extradited to the US to stand trial on computer hacking charges. I may be sharing this position with some pretty unsavoury neocon sorts, and I hate to bandy phrases like "if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime" around willy-nilly, but it's what I honestly believe.
Of course, the man has Asperger's and therefore many are arguing (with great eloquence and passion, I might add) that he should be treated as a special case. I freely admit to not knowing a great deal about this complex condition. It's clear that sufferers have great problems with emotional and social interaction, as well as a tendency towards intense preoccupation with a narrow subject such as UFOs in McKinnon's case. I would argue that the question of intent with regards to this alleged crime, and such issues as whether the man is capable of distinguishing right from from wrong, is at the very best a grey area. Therefore, I would have to argue that this is a matter for the courts to decide, and as US property and interests were (allegedly) under threat then it should be dealt with on their side of the Atlantic.
My main problem with the coverage of the McKinnon saga has been that the facts of his individual case are too often blurred by people's negative opinions of the US, its legal system, and the supposedly imbalanced extradition treaty we signed with them in 2003. Quotes attributed to US officials about wishing to see Gary "fry" are certainly troubling, but we should remember that a legal system is independent of other executive branches. "The sentence that will be imposed by the US courts", said Lord Justice Stanley Burnton in Friday's high court judgment, "will take account of his diagnosis of Asperger's and the difficulties that he will in consequence face in a US prison."
Ah, say the doubters, even if that is true then their legal system is still flawed. I've never forgotten the coverage of the extradition of the so-called Natwest Three, when a carefully-orchestrated PR campaign convinced many people that the nasty Americans would degrade and humiliate those guys before locking them up Guantanamo-style and throwing away the key. As it turned out, they were each sentenced to 37 months in prison and allowed to complete the majority of their sentences in the UK.
McKinnon's alleged crimes are considered to be far more serious, of course. Still, a curious paradox exists whereby sections of the British media see any Brit arrested abroad to be at great risk of suffering draconian, unjust punishment, but at the same time our own justice system is accused of being far too lenient when it comes to sentencing. I wonder what their position would be if it was an American who was accused of hacking into our top-secret computer networks?
And the Extradition Act 2003 may well be unfairly weighted in favour of the Americans when it comes to the extradition of each other's citizens. Even so, being treated as a political football is surely not what McKinnon needs.
The other main argument is that McKinnon was ultimately doing the Americans a favour by showing them how vulnerable to attacks their computer systems were. Quite apart from the fact that it was never his intention, this would be a ludicrous argument if you applied it to other crimes. "Yeah your Honour, I broke into the house and robbed all their stuff to show them just how easy it was. Can I have a medal?" And the notion that the US government should be looking to employ Gary instead of imprisoning him is somewhat far-fetched considering his belief that they are engaged in a massive cover-up of a new "clean energy" source and employ a sinister cadre of "Non-Terrestrial Officers".
And so we go back to the question of whether this was a crime committed knowingly or not, on which I've made my feelings clear above. This doesn't mean that I don't feel sorry for Gary or his family, or that I think this is an entirely proportionate response by the Yanks. Perhaps it means that I'm guilty of retaining a naive belief that justice will eventually out, despite there being plenty of recent evidence to the contrary.
On the other hand, maybe those who hold the US in such low esteem are guilty of sharing the same kind of conspiracy mentality as poor Gary.
Comments