The Extradition Act must be reviewed.

Ruairidh

Of course the treaty should be balanced and this should be revisted.

But McKinnon has confessed so the prima facie evidence is there in spades. He should be extradited and stand trial then the compassionate mitigation can be considered by a court of law rather than the media.

C Powell

The Act should be suspended until the US passes into law the terms of the Extradition Treaty. If this has not happened within a year, then it should be repealed and the grounds for extradition to the US should be the same as before. But exactly the same objections arise with regard to the European Arrest Warrant and what is any party in this country proposing to do about that?

It emphasises also the fact that UK citizens appear to have no rights under Labour's much vaunted Human Rights Act whereas non-citizens living here who everyone accepts are very dangerous people indeed are protected by that Act from any sort of judicial proceedings at all, here or anywhere else.

If only I could have any confidence that a different government would do anything about this.

Verity

This is a genuine question: who signed the Extradition Act for Britain. Presumably the Foreign Secretary of the day, who was who?

Until it's amended that's the programme we signed up for and we cannot make changes on an ad hoc basis. If we signed it, we signed it.

David M

Those involved (both American and British) should consider how it is going to look politically when Gary McKinnon is convicted (which he will be) and is sentenced to 90 years in an American Supermax prison. If he has Aspergers, it is likely that he will react extremely badly to being held on permanent lock-down in a concrete box 3000 miles from home, far worse than the average person. I have worked with people with Asperger's, and this could turn out very, very badly.

The issues around the Extradition Act must be looked at BEFORE any final decision on McKinnon is made. As it stands it makes the US look like a country that thinks nothing of it's allies, and it makes Britain look like a cowering victim. Neither is desirable.

John Adlington

He is toast. They show no compunction in executing people who commit crimes as minors of who have serious mental health issues. I'm disgusted. I hope Cameron sets out a firm intention to redress the imbalance in this disgraceful treaty.

Liz Brown

The Government should simply say that he is not going - end of story. What can the Americans do? Bomb us?

David Ossitt

On the one hand we have an Ethiopian who lived here for a short while who was arrested in Pakistan and spent time in Guantanamo returned to our country and is using our legal aid to charge us as accomplices to torture.

A Nigerian woman criminal who was a drug mule; who’s mother and family live in Ireland, being repatriated to the UK, why?.

Any number of low life criminals allowed to live here because to send them home is to act against their human rights.

And on the other hand we have an English man; about to be sent to America to stand trial for a major crime, when all he did was to do them the most tremendous favour of showing them that there computer skills, were piss poor.

Shitty or what?

PSJ

That the Extradition Act is not reciprocal is only part of the problem with this inquitous piece of grovelling to America.

Crimes committed in Britain should be tried in Britain, or not at all. I understand Gary McKinnon and the Natwest Three committed their crimes here, so they should be tried here.

We should also not extradite criminals to countries whose standards of justice fall below our own. America, with its denial of bail to foreigners, its emphasis on plea bargaining which encourages the innocent to plead guilty, its allowing police officers to lie during interrogations and its absurdly long prison sentences for trivial offences is one such. We should not extradite British citizens where they face longer sentences than they do here.

Finally, the European arrest warrant is subject to many of the same flaws and should also no longer apply, regardless of any treaty obligations.

What is the Conservative Party's position on this? As far as I can tell, the silence from them is deafening, though I've probably missed some announcement they've made.

James j

The point is this seems to be a trend. Why are British interests not considered paramount by “our” negotiators in the same way as the US and French etc are by theirs?

John

I find it extraordinary that this government wants to stay in power yet most of the legislation that is enacted in Parliament, has been at the behest of the EU Commission or the US Government. The degree of appeasement towards the US is baffling: it's almost as if the CIA etc have some secret dossier on Nu Labour and are blackmailing them.

That this hacker is alleged to have been so successful is a bit implausible. Remember CIA claims on 9/11 had to be heavily revised once a few pertinent questions were posed by the US media. If the US IT systems are so weak, how can it be proved that ONLY Mr McKinnon hacked in. Media reports that foreign governments are trying to hack into our systems as well as the US.

Yankee doodle dandy...

This extradition treaty is an absolute nonsense. I remember when exactly the same treaty was entered into by the Rep of Ireland at the same time, again in secret, by Michael McDowell a barrister no less.

It's the secrecy that gives the clue. It's clear that neither the British nor Irish govts wanted their citizens to know anything about it, precisely because of the embarrassment that both knew would ensue.

Both knew what they were doing and it's clear that they were leant on by the Americans to pass this noxious unbalanced instrument.

It must be renegotiated forthwith.

Steve.W

Strangely, or not, in August 2008 the European Court of Human Rights refused to hear Gary McKinnan's appeal. Yet, in this same month, this same court accepted an appeal by Abu Hamza, thus postponing his extradition as, sending him to a maximum security US jail might breach his human rights!

Also, what about the European Extradition Treaty? Each year thousands of people are transferred under Europe’s fast-track system of extradition to face trials in a foreign country. Last week a British man, Andrew Symeneou, was sent to Greece to face trial without ever having been interviewed by Greek police.

Kevyn Bodman

It is shameful that the government negotiated such an asymetric treaty.
So clearly failing to protect the national interest should be punished.

Jeremy

"And the Home Secretary is not lying when he says he cannot, even on compassionate grounds, insist on a domestic trial."

Then perhaps, being Home Secretary, he could insist upon a change in the law. Any word on that from the would-be leader of the Labour Party?

The fact of the matter is that Gary McKinnon's extradition is taking place on Alan Johnson's watch - and with both his connivance and support. And let it not be forgotten that it was a Labour government which proved itself both witless and gullible enough to be conned by the Americans' false assurances of "full reciprocity" into passing this iniquitous and one-sided Extradition Act into law in the first place. Had Labour the merest shred of the "conscience" they are continually lecturing the rest of us about, they would rescind the Act.

The first duty of any British government must be to protect the citizens of this country from purloin, molestation and imprisonment by a foreign power. The fact that Labour nodded through an Extradition Act which enables the government of the United States to forcibly remove citizens from this country without first presenting any "prima facie evidence" against them constitutes both a dereliction of duty by the government and a gross betrayal of the British people.

It is also worth recalling Lord Carlile's words in relation this matter:

"The Government has argued that it cannot prevent the extradition as a matter of law, and has no discretion in the case. However, it is wrong. According to the law, an offence can be tried in England and Wales, provided the conduct or its consequences took place in England and Wales. Gary McKinnon's conduct was in England. He can be tried in England."

Bocephus

How many IRA suspects did America extradite to Britain during the Troubles?

Despite many requests from Britain they extradited precisely zero. Says it all really.

Frank S

I have no sympathy with someone who may have attacked the security of our most important ally, disabling important systems and causing hundreds of thousands of pounds of costs. He deserves to be extradited, and to get a fair trial.

Ralph

Gary McKinnon had the capacity to hack into a number of computer systems in the US but now he's threatened with extradition he pleads mental illness.

R

I completely agree with James J that UK governments consistently fail to put our own interests first, and that they should do so. This type of treaty is a good example of the kind of deal that should not have been agreed: there is no reason whatsoever why an extradition treaty should not be perfectly reciprocal. It should indeed be reviewed.

On the other hand, and anticipating unpopularity, I don't have much sympathy for McKinnon. His defence is completely ridiculous, and also priggish and self-righteous ('I had a moral duty to investigate rumours that the US government were hiding clean power sources obtained from aliens'). If his idiotic behaviour is attributable to mental illness, US courts are as capable of taking this into account as British ones. I would expect his side to be taken unequivocally by the Channel 4 News etc, but The Spectator should be made of sterner stuff.

Alfred T Mahan

I want to know what the quid pro quo was from the Americans that stopped various Home Secretaries from having him charged here. I only hope it was worthwhile.

Redvers

I remember that the Natwest Three had a PR firm working for them, spinning their story to the press (principally taken up by the Telegraph). I also remember that most of the scare stories were exactly that - scare stories.

Here we have a similar case. A professional PR campaign and the press (this time the Mail) lapping it up.

Denis Cooper

In practice the 2003 UK/US Extradition Treaty is only slightly asymmetric - apparently there's an 89% success rate for the requests made by the US for extradition of somebody from the UK, while 70% of the requests made by the UK for extradition from the US are successful.

Even so, it's completely wrong that a UK citizen can be extradited to any foreign jurisdiction without having had the opportunity to challenge the prima facie evidence against him in a UK court.

As some of us have been saying, again and again, for about nine bloody years now, ever since the proposals for the EU Arrest Warrant first saw the light of day.

Liberty has belatedly come to see this, and is now campaigning against fast track extradition to any foreign country:

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/extradition/index.shtml

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/23-07-09-liberty-condemns-extradition-of-andrew-symeou.shtml

"Andrew Symeou is being extradited under the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The EAW is based upon the presumption that EU countries all have fair and equal systems of justice which should remove the need for the home nation to scrutinise the fairness of extradition within the EU. This presumption is seriously open to question. The EAW abolishes the requirement to provide a prima facie case which seriously increases the risk of injustice in such cases by removing the power of the High Court to scrutinise the merits in an individual case."

Meanwhile, the pathologically pro-EU Conservative party is ONLY concerned about fast track extradition to the US - very bad, make a lot of noise about it - and totally unconcerned about fast track to other EU countries - very good, but keep quiet about it.

James J

John@5.40
Well they do have the Stasi files...

Susan Hill

This was one of the most serious breaches of security there have been. MacKinnon not only hacked into the most important areas of the Pentagon and US defence systems, he left Anti-American slogans everywhere, like graffitti. Asperger's is not a defence it is a mitigation and even if he does have Aasperger's syndrome that does not mean he is not guilty. He should be extradited forthwith. The USA have every right to want him tried on their soil for crimes against them.

Michael Harrington

This treaty is so unequal that it was moral treason for the British Government to sign it. Yet the MacKinnon case may prove to be valuable if it wakes up British opinion to what has been done in their name.
At least the Conservatives are not now being led by Iain Duncan Smith who I imagine to have been the first wholly owned and controlled American asset to have led a British political party.
David Cameron, I think, is starting to speak for Britain in these matters. Even on a cynical calculation there is a great reward in store for the politician who promises to take Britain out of servitude to the United States.

It is the most potent card lying on the table of British politics at the present time .One day somebody is going to pick it up and use it.

Go to Jail

I'd be more interested in seeing the politician who takes us out of the real servitude to the EU. At least I get the feeling that the Americans are on my side.

I have no issues with this guy being extradited to America. He's been revelling in this for years and now the music has stopped all of a sudden, he's not a 43 year old smart arse who got caught, he's a poor little lamb whose Mum has to speak on his behalf.

Rainer Unsinn

Firstly, I have grave doubts as to the equality of the current extradition laws - maybe not on paper, but in practice. Britain seems to send anyone anywhere, but fail to get anyone from anywhere. Pathetic.

Secondly, I have no sympathy with McKinnon. He knew what he was doing and he knew it was wrong. That, in law, is sufficient for him to be tried.

Asperger's, as has been said, is a mitigation, not a defence. He will be tried, for the crime and, if found guilty, will be sentenced according to circumstance, i.e. his disability will be taken into consideration.

John Levett

With regard to the Home Secretary's powers: do I not recall that when a really important issue arises - disclosure via FOI of MPs expenses, for example - new laws or amendments can be tabled for enactment almost overnight?

Andy Leeds

The Government should never have signed so unequal a treaty. Of course exactly the same terms and conditions should apply to UK-US and US-UK extradition.

As to the European Extradition Warrant this is an even worse nonsense. But some of us spoke out about it at the time. Its a pity that Liberty have come to this very late in the day. Of course we all know why that is.

Nicholas

But what did he discover about UFO technology on his visit, if anything?

Seriously, though, the point is whether he should be extradited not whether he should be tried - some people here seem to be missing that point. I agree with Michael Harrington. Despite the fiction to the contrary very little benefit has ever come from our "special relationship" with the USA, who have spent the best part of 70 years supplanting us as a world power and undermining our independence, influence and wealth. The USA is the primary reason for our contemporary confusion of identity. Having delayed the defeat of Germany by the foolish Anglophobia of their generals and their constant anti-Montgomery bickering in the NW European campaign they then bankrupted us with the settlement of Lend-Lease and forced more debt upon us than the reparations imposed on the Axis. Eisenhower's "broad front" strategy was ridiculous in the circumstances and dictated more by Anglophobe American newspapers than any military considerations. They actively undermined our Empire East of Suez and their activities laid the seeds for much of the current tensions in that region. They worked against our mandate in Palestine and managed to alienate from us the Jewish movements we had formerly championed. They openly opposed our intervention in Suez, remarkably against the Israelis but not surprisingly against the French, which put the final nail in our coffin as a World maritime power. They had started this before WWII when they managed to queer the pitch in our hitherto excellent relationship with Japan, at the same time sowing the seeds for the latter nation's aggression in the region. Their stalwart defence of China against foreign exploitation and Japanese incursions did not prevent them anbandoning that country to the communists in 1949 (they had worked hard intriguing with Chiang Kai-shek to try to prevent us regaining Hong Kong). Their generals in the China-Burma-India theatre hated us and actively worked against us. They gave succour to the IRA in its 30 year terrorist campaign against the British people. In fact everywhere you look in 20th Century world history you will find the USA actively queering the pitch for Britain whilst protesting their friendship. Now history has repeated itself and our relationship with the USA has once again left us staggering under massive debt - in part by following them into foolishly planned and executed wars and in part from their exported financial crash. All this, the unequal treaty and the fact that it was agreed to by the New Labour fascists is good enough reason to oppose this extradition.

Verity

David M: "...when Gary McKinnon is convicted (which he will be ...)" ... You know that, do you? You people who have never lived in the United States certainly do entertain some weird, defensive notions about the American judicial system! I'd far rather be tried in an American court than a British Court, where the judiciary has been corrupted by Common Purpose and the Fascist Thought Police. It's not perfect, but it's not malign.

This isn't a comment on the Treaty, but someone in Britain must have signed it. Why aren't you bombarding that person with contumely, instead of the Americans, who are acting, quite rightly, in their own national self-interst? Unlike the corrupt British government, which acts in its own personal self-interest.

Michael Harrington

I am also concerned that Army chiefs want to cut into the future strength of the Royal Navy in order to find money for the Army to fight in American wars to serve American interests.

Denis Cooper

Blunkett signed it, Verity, on March 31st 2003, and within days Statewatch issued a warning about it:

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/apr/07euusauk.htm

and then in the July issued a Special Report on it:

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm

Note how this is all tied in with EU-US agreements on fast track extradition, as well as intra-EU fast track extradition through the EU Arrest Warrant; but it's another of those many things which "have nothing whatsoever to do with the EU" according to the europhiles.

Craig Strachan

Bocephus: "How many IRA suspects did America extradite to Britain during the Troubles?

Despite many requests from Britain they extradited precisely zero"

That'll be news to Joe Doherty.

John O'Connor

If Gary McKinnon wanrs to play along with his supporters' claim that he's this shivery wee thing with mental problems, he really shouldn't give interviews to the BBC where he comes across as articulate, confident to the point of smugness, and pugnaciously defiant. An over-sensitive teenager he isn't.

Read

The US-UK extradition treaty is a red herring.

Similar terms apply to any Council of Europe member:

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/024.htm

If you do some research, you can see some of the jurisdictions involved: trial in the US would be a paragon of fairness in comparison.

By all means, talk about the extradition of UK citizens in general, but this unhealthy anti-US bias is unhelpful and deflects attention from the wider issue.

Verity

Read - "you can see some of the jurisdictions involved: trial in the US would be a paragon of fairness in comparison."

Actually, trials in the US are pretty much a paragon of fairness without comparison. Given the communist thought control and prejudiced attitude in today's British legal establishment, I would far rather receive a trial in the US than in Britain.

Verity

Plus, I went to traffic court in the US and had a good case, but I was the last defendant and was dying to go to the loo by the time my case was called and so didn't answer the judge's questions as well as I might have. I was found guilty - which was a travesty of justice - but my observation of the cases which preceded mine was that the court was conducted honourably and in a dignified manner.

And this was a traffic court. If this judge was an example of careful and mindful conduct of jurisprudence, give me the US over Britain any day for any more serious crimes.