Hacker loses US extradition appeal

[Alatar]

From todays Irish Times:

Hacker loses US extradition appeal

UK computer hacker set for extradition to US | 10/05/2006A British UFO enthusiast accused of the “biggest military hack of all time” lost his appeal to the Law Lords against extradition to the United States today.

Gary McKinnon, an unemployed 42-year-old, faces up to 70 years in prison if convicted in the US of sabotaging vital defence systems.

The House of Lords rejected a plea by Mr McKinnon, who was never charged in Britain after admitting accessing 97 US military and Nasa computers, to quash an extradition request granted to the US authorities in 2006.

Lawyers for Mr McKinnon, from Enfield, north London, pointed out that he could be sent to Guantanamo Bay as a terrorist suspect - despite his insistence that he accessed Pentagon computers looking for information about UFOs.

From the bedroom of his girlfriend’s aunt’s house in north London, he hacked into 97 American military computers at the Pentagon and Nasa between 2001 and 2002.

Mr McKinnon never denied that he wandered around the computer networks of a wide number of US military institutions.

But he has always maintained that he was motivated by curiosity and that he managed to get into the networks only because of lax security.

American authorities claim he stole 950 passwords and deleted files at Earle naval weapons station in New Jersey.

He was accused of using his computer skills to gain access to 53 US Army computers, including those used for national defence and security, and 26 US Navy computers, including those at US Naval Weapons Station Earle in New Jersey, which is responsible for replenishing munitions and supplies for the deployed Atlantic fleet.

He was also charged with hacking into 16 Nasa computers and one US Defence Department computer.

Mark Summers, an official representing the US government, previously told a London court that Mr McKinnon’s hacking was “intentional and calculated to influence and affect the US government by intimidation and coercion”.

Mr McKinnon lost his case at the High Court last year and went straight to the highest court in the land, the House of Lords, last month.

There David Pannick QC, representing him, said his extradition would be an abuse of proceedings.

Mr McKinnon had been warned by the US authorities that he faced a life sentence rather than a couple of years in jail unless he agreed to plead guilty and accept extradition.

Without co-operation, said the authorities, the case could be treated as one of terrorism. It has been reported that US prosecutors wanted to “see him fry”.

Mr McKinnon said he was motivated by curiosity and was looking for evidence that the US government had information on UFOs.

His supporters say he is being made a “scapegoat” for security shortcomings on US military networks.

Mr McKinnon described his exploits as “ridiculously” easy.

After a previous hearing, he said: “I was amazed at the lack of security and the reason I left not just one note but multiple notes on multiple desktops was to say ‘Look, this is ridiculous’.

“My intention was never to disrupt security. The fact that I logged on there and there were no passwords means that there was no security.”

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

The account that I read included the claim that the details of early offers to reduce the charges were burgled from his solicitor.
Funny how many years IRA men wanted for murder could hang out in the US.

[solicitr]

Alatar, Tosh, any others from the British Isles:

could you perhaps share some insight as to why the public across the pond seem to be in such an uproar over this?

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

A potential 60 years in jail perhaps. Why didn't they recruit him to work for the security services? His offence seems one of boredom rather than malice.

[solicitr]

Well, before the trial we can't really know the facts, and we can't predict what the sentence will be. It would be very, very surprising if the judge applied the maximum possible penalty if this fellow really was just a sort of cyber-tourist.

Given all that, why the objection to having him stand trial at all?

[Primula Baggins]

If he might end up at Guantanamo, held without accountability and tried in secret—then maybe never be released even if he's acquitted? I'd fight, too.

Though I otherwise don't have a lot of sympathy for him. Take Gitmo off the table (stop talking about terrorism) and stick to conventional U.S. law, and I think he ought to face trial. And "60 years" sounds like bluster to me.

[solicitr]

Prim, he's not going to Gitmo. That's irresponsible fear-mongering.

[Primula Baggins]

If it were me, I'd want "no Guantanamo, no secret trial" guaranteed up front, in writing. Wouldn't you? I wouldn't trust those people one millimeter.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I have zero sympathy for this person.

[solicitr]

Prim, it already is up front, in writing: in US law. His extradition automatically places him under the Article III (civilian) courts.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, the point I made is the total extent of my own sympathy. He appears to have committed a serious crime and should stand trial for it. I just don't think he deserves to be disappeared.

Edit: Soli, are you sure there isn't some overriding executive order that could be applied to a "terror suspect"?

[solicitr]

Uh, Prim, even the Gitmo inmates have not been 'diasppeared.'

[Primula Baggins]

But some of them will never be either tried or freed. That's limbo.

[sauronsfinger]

That whole situation just screams for mocking and satire.

We have to fight these heathens to preserve Constitutional due process - but of course, we cannot give them due process of any kind in order to preserve the rights of due process.

right.

- sorry - back to topic

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Prim, I'm sure. The Guantanamo comment was nothing more than an inflammatory statement made by his attorneys. It should be treated with the respect that it deserves.

[solicitr]

Prim, Gitmo is rather a side issue to this fellow- but, now, just accusing someone of a 'terrorist offense' doesn't place him under military jurisdiction. Gitmo applies to Al-Qaeda and Taliban combatants captured in a war zone. The ordinary civilian courts have tried many, many accused terrorists arrested in the US and elsewhere since 9/11.

Gitmo is not a 'limbo.' There are two parallel dynamics at work, which are too often confused.

Dynamic 1) Unlawful enemy combatants legally have similar status to, but fewer rights than, prisoners of war (lawful enemy combatants). In either case, enemy combatants may be detained until the cessation of hostilities. This is hardly new!

Dynamic 2) Some (not all) of the prisoners at Gitmo are alleged to have committed specific crimes, for which they are to be prosecuted. This is over and above their status detention as enemy combatants.


Now, none of this is to suggest I support the Bush Administration's attempts to stack the deck. I am appalled that the Status Review Hearings (which are held to distinguish actual combatants from the poor schmos who were herding goats and got swept up) have not been held according to the Mnual for Courts-Martial. I am very upset -angry, actually - that those accused of specific crimes have not been remanded to the US Marshal Service for indictment and trial in the appropriate Federal District Court. I have little but contempt for the attempted dodge -now shot down by the Supremes - that Gitmo somehow isn't "US territory."

But I also get extremely annoyed by the chorus against 'detention without charge' when detention, with nary a criminal allegation, is exactly what one does with POWs.

[Primula Baggins]

Thanks, Voronwë and solicitr. I'll take both your word for it; I'm not an attorney.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Who would deny he is a mischievous fool deserving some punishment?


I extract the essence of the problem.

Mr McKinnon had been warned by the US authorities that he faced a life sentence rather than a couple of years in jail unless he agreed to plead guilty and accept extradition.

Without co-operation, said the authorities, the case could be treated as one of terrorism. It has been reported that US prosecutors wanted to “see him fry”.

[Holbytla]

he hacked into 97 American military computers at the Pentagon and Nasa between 2001 and 2002

This to me is far more upsetting than anything else.
He was able to successfully hack 97 times?

I hope they have upgraded their security since then.

[solicitr]

Tosh, it's absolutely SOP for cops and prosecutors to threaten to 'throw the book' at a suspect unless he cooperates.