British Hacker Can Challenge U.S. Extradition

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
How in the world is this case still pending? The courts have already agreed to extradite him a couple times already. The guy has admitted…hell, bragged about his exploits, now he wants London’s House of Lords to hear his case? Sheesh. And you thought our appeals process was drawn out. :eek:

A district court ruled in May 2006 that he should be extradited, a decision upheld at London's High Court in April this year. However on Monday three of Britain's top judges gave McKinnon permission to take his case to the House of Lords.
Click to expand...
 
You know, it'd be totally different if he was fighting extradition claiming "I didn't do it"...but Google this guys name and you will hear some of the craziest crap ever, him admitting to the whole thing (repeatedly) but then he fights extradition....wow, just...wow.
 
It's painfully obvious that he realizes that if he does get extradited to the US, his ass is grass and the US is the lawnmower... :D
 
Of course everyone knows that the US hates the British and will punish them far worse than a US citizen when they are brought before our courts. :rolleyes:
 
Steve said:
You know, it'd be totally different if he was fighting extradition claiming "I didn't do it"...but Google this guys name and you will hear some of the craziest crap ever, him admitting to the whole thing (repeatedly) but then he fights extradition....wow, just...wow.
Click to expand...

So what if he admitted his actions in interviews? Why should that have ANY impact whatsoever on whether or not he is entitled to fight his extradiction? What's he's taking advantage of is called due process. You heard of it? He gets two appeals, just like in the U.S. Why you seem to think whatever he said in some interviews - none of which, by the way, will be admissible as evidence in a trial - somehow strip him of his right to appeal and fight his extradiction is baffling. But then again, why would he be entitled to a trial? Why, by gosh, he admitted to these acts in an interview!! Forget all this nonsense due process! Send him to straight to prison!
 
Sounds like he is haxxing the legal system loopholes, to me at least...;)
 
ddarko said:
So what if he admitted his actions in interviews? Why should that have ANY impact whatsoever on whether or not he is entitled to fight his extradiction? What's he's taking advantage of is called due process. You heard of it? He gets two appeals, just like in the U.S. Why you seem to think whatever he said in some interviews - none of which, by the way, will be admissible as evidence in a trial - somehow strip him of his right to appeal and fight his extradiction is baffling. But then again, why would he be entitled to a trial? Why, by gosh, he admitted to these acts in an interview!! Forget all this nonsense due process! Send him to straight to prison!
Click to expand...

You are totally right. He is definitely working the system to its fullest extent....which is what I am making fun of.

You don't think it is ludicrous to admit to the allegations repeatedly. Brag about them in interviews. Say the U.S. can't do sh*t to you..blah, blah, blah. Then cry like a little girl when they try to haul you into court? Personally, I think it is hilarious and I can't help but wonder how this whole thing is still going on. The added fact that he is claiming the U.S. is going to violate his human rights and he fears for his life...pulease.


Like i said, if he was proclaiming his innocence, no one would have a problem with it.

The courts saw through his B.S. the first two times, they will see through it again. And, as far as your ascertion that the TV stuff can't be held against him, it may be that way here...it isn't over there (read his first two extradition hearings).
 
bob said:
Sounds like he is haxxing the legal system loopholes, to me at least...;)
Click to expand...

Judge: Mr. McKinnon, you will be extradited to the United States of America where you will be tr-

McKinnon: ***BUFFER OVERFLOW***

Judge: ...wtf mate?
 
Steve said:
The courts saw through his B.S. the first two times, they will see through it again. And, as far as your ascertion that the TV stuff can't be held against him, it may be that way here...it isn't over there (read his first two extradition hearings).
Click to expand...

Absurd. Why should his public statements have any impact on whether or not he should have access to the courts? Even men guilty as sin are entitled to their day in court.

The argument is over where he should be tried. He is arguing that if he is to be charged - and significantly, the British authorities have never charged him with anything - he should be tried in Britain, where he was physically located and not in the U.S. You may not agree with this argument but that does not make the argument unreasonable, indefensible or beyond the pale. He is not arguing for the right to eat small children! The very same British High Court judges who ruled against him nevertheless granted him leave to appeal to the House of Lords. They could have denied him the right to appeal to the House of Lords if they thought his arguments baseless but they recognized his argument was worth review.

And BTW, the standard of evidence for an extradiction hearing is far less stringent than at an actual trial at the courts. If he were to be tried in a British court, his public statements would NOT be admissible.
 
Fuck extradition. Try him there and let the British imprison him. It'll save money for the U.S. taxpayer.
 
One point of this case that has garnered a lot of sympathy for his case in the uk is the fact that the current uk-us extradition laws allows any uk citizen to be extradited to the US without any form of justification needing to be provided. No form of evidence is required, just a clear statement of the facts of the offense. Of course this does not work the other way around as no-one in the US would stand for it.

51st state anyone?
 
Slightly off topic, but has anyone realized the dollar amount attached to hacking the US government's computers and shutting them down for 24 hours, compared to the 3.6 million dollars that could've been potentially attached to the 24 songs some woman in Minnesota downloaded?

A proven, confessed attack only does $700,000 in damages, yet somehow sharing 24 songs illegally garners 3.6 million dollars? What?

Back on topic, this dude has some balls between his legs. BALLS.
 
yeah, but claiming his "human rights" are at risk? That guy is a tool
Click to expand...

His human rights are at risk & the person to blame for this crap is the wife of the former Prime Minister, Cherie Blair (if truth be known she was the one running the country into the ground not Tony Blair). Since she got the Human Rights Bill passed in the European Courts (the same European Courts that punished Microsoft for running it's business in a legal manner in the UK) due to her being a Human Rights Lawyer (no immoral reasons there for the bill being passed is there?), the UK has turned into a place the everybody is welcome to come and live as long as you are not British. If he was Polish or other non-British citizen and living in the UK, then he would be housed in luxury and the US of A would have been told where to stick their extradition treaty.

Of course everyone knows that the US hates the British and will punish them far worse than a US citizen when they are brought before our courts.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows that the US only hate the British as we end up getting your so-called Government & military out of the shit it gets itself into. Us British cannot help having a far superior military operation running on broken weapons and outdated machinery, yet still save your 'asses' every time you get into a little spat with a third world country such as Iraq or Afghanistan.;)

Fuck extradition. Try him there and let the British imprison him. It'll save money for the U.S. taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Sorry all our prisons are already full of ex-US armed forces staff that used to be stationed here that committed crimes in Britain when they were supposed to be "protecting the free world". About time US of A started to give something back.

how did he cause 700k in damage
Click to expand...

My guess is that he installed Frostwire onto their servers & downloaded a couple of Metallica tracks into the mainframe, which the RIAA found out about and charged the military for illegally downloading music to put on their Zunes that they have mounted in the Stealth bombers ;)
 
ddarko said:
Absurd. Even men guilty as sin are entitled to their day in court.
Click to expand...

What is "absurd" is that you don't get the point...the point is:

We don't like it and we don't HAVE to like it.

As already stated, is he entitled to due process? Yes. Do we have to LIKE the fact that the scumbag has repeatedly admitted what he did, flaunted it, said he'd never be extradited and then screamed "human rights violations" when it came time to face the music. No...we do NOT have to like it and we don't.

You are arguing a point that nobody is disputing.

He is a scumbag gaming the system (that you so rightly pointed out he has the right to do...) and we don't like it...which we have the right not to....unless you are saying we don't have the right to hate scumbags that game the system?
 
What I don't understand is why America thinks it has the right to ask for him to be extradited

I mean if it was a US citizen being asked for after committing ciber crime against Russia, China or even the UK, America would flatly say no.

I think that may even be official US policy

He should be tried in the UK as a British citizan breaking our laws. America shouldn't be using extradition processes that were designed to speed up the transfer of terrorists that physically committed crimes in the US.

The 3 British men that were extradited (one of them committing suicide rather than being handed over) because of their involvement with the Enron collapse was despicable and our ministers should never have agreed to it.

Mike
 
Steve said:
What is "absurd" is that you don't get the point...the point is:

We don't like it and we don't HAVE to like it.

As already stated, is he entitled to due process? Yes. Do we have to LIKE the fact that the scumbag has repeatedly admitted what he did, flaunted it, said he'd never be extradited and then screamed "human rights violations" when it came time to face the music. No...we do NOT have to like it and we don't.

You are arguing a point that nobody is disputing.

He is a scumbag gaming the system (that you so rightly pointed out he has the right to do...) and we don't like it...which we have the right not to....unless you are saying we don't have the right to hate scumbags that game the system?
Click to expand...

Stand by your own words instead of retroactively trying to alter them. Your first post did not just criticize his conduct; your first post attacked his right of access to the British courts. You questioned why he should be even allowed to appeal to the House of Lords. Now, all of a sudden, you have no problem with that? Nice backtracking there.
 
ddarko said:
Stand by your own words instead of retroactively trying to alter them. Your first post did not just criticize his conduct; your first post attacked his right of access to the British courts. You questioned why he should be even allowed to appeal to the House of Lords. Now, all of a sudden, you have no problem with that? Nice backtracking there.
Click to expand...

The point = Here




































You = Here
 
How sad. Unable to defend your claims, you resort to childish stunts.

Here is the point, straight enough for even you to understand: where in the legal traditions of both Britain and America is there the concept that a "guilty" man should have fewer rights to argue his case in court? This viewpoint is what you're espousing when you say you wouldn't have a problem with his appeals if he said he was innocent but you do have a problem because he admits to them in a bunch of interviews. And I have repeatedly asked you and you have repeated refused to explain why his "confessions" should make any impact on his right to appeal his case.

And you ignore again and again that, at this point, this man is guilty of NOTHING. He is not a criminal, he is not convicted of a single charge in any court in the world. Even if extradicted, he would still need to undergo trial. And yet, because of his comments, you KNOW he is guilty, you KNOW he is going to lose, you KNOW he should be extradicted and you KNOW he should be convicted and thrown in jail and you KNOW he shouldn't be able to appeal his case anymore. What lunatic, fascist notion of liberty you have, where a person's guilty or innocent is not determined by a court but by sound bites and interviews with reporters.
 
ddarko said:
How sad. Unable to defend your claims, you resort to childish stunts.

Here is the point, straight enough for even you to understand: where in the legal traditions of both Britain and America is there the concept that a "guilty" man should have fewer rights to argue his case in court? This viewpoint is what you're espousing when you say you wouldn't have a problem with his appeals if he said he was innocent but you do have a problem because he admits to them in a bunch of interviews. And I have repeatedly asked you and you have repeated refused to explain why his "confessions" should make any impact on his right to appeal his case.

And you ignore again and again that, at this point, this man is guilty of NOTHING. He is not a criminal, he is not convicted of a single charge in any court in the world. Even if extradicted, he would still need to undergo trial. And yet, because of his comments, you KNOW he is guilty, you KNOW he is going to lose, you KNOW he should be extradicted and you KNOW he should be convicted and thrown in jail and you KNOW he shouldn't be able to appeal his case anymore. What lunatic, fascist notion of liberty you have, where a person's guilty or innocent is not determined by a court but by sound bites and interviews with reporters.
Click to expand...


shhh before you get the ban hammer

heil hard forums

:p
 
sabrewolf732 said:
shhh before you get the ban hammer

heil hard forums

:p
Click to expand...

He's definitely pushing it with the insults....but I don't ban people that can't read and that is obviously his problem.

Everyone else seems to get the point that the scumbag in the article is totally gaming the system and that's what makes people sick.
 
Reading what I have posted, does anybody else think I am whacked for not liking the fact that this guy is totally working the system?

And that admitting to something in almost 50+ interviews probably means YOU DID IT. ;) Yes, you are entitled to a trial but they tell you "You have the right to remain silent" for a reason.


Anyhow this thread jumped so far off topic it isn't even funny, let's get it over to the appropriate forum and everyone can have at it ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top