Naw, his more famous play....

"Much Ado about Nothing"

....
....Oh well,...."As You Like It"....

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Naw, his more famous play....

"Much Ado about Nothing"

---

Unfortunately not, regretfully I have a prior engagement elsewhere.

Could this engagement possibly be in attending the opening first night
of Shakespeare's play, "All is well that endes well"....Minister?

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Unfortunately not, regretfully I have a prior engagement elsewhere.

Oy, you trying to steal my mantle?

---

So in the end then I suspect a deal was brokered,

"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment."

No Minister, we couldn't possibly expect you too. "Will you be at the American
Embassy for drinks tonight"?

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

So in the end then I suspect a deal was brokered,

"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment."

All in all it's still spying though Martin something we all have to condone.
Yet the Yanks spy against the Tommies and the Tommies spy against the Yanks so
you have to laugh after all.

Yes, the Yanks are good as persecution, they must have learnt how to do this
off us. The mind set of the Americans over some issues is quite different to
that of ours over here in the UK. America has taken some nasty bashes recently
so you can understand why their going to be quite heavy on breaches of
security, whoever commits them. They'll push the boat out to get their way but
will be pragmatic over the result with reference to McKinnon. America has got
the man they truly wonted and I suspect that they opted for Hook man over
McKinnon. With regards to Mckinnon there is nothing new for the American
authorities to learn. They new he did the hack and they know how he did it
so there's no point in shelling out £1000's of dollars a week keeping him
behind bars. But with Hook man then there's a lot to be gleaned from this
feller so they desperately wonted to get their hands on him. To this end the
whole of the UK was only too pleased to see Hook man fall into the hands of
the Americans at last. So in the end then I suspect a deal was brokered,
we'll definitely at all cost give you Hook man, come what may, provided you
accept that we would prefer to keep McKinnon here at home...deal done.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

... Gary McKinnon was a hacker who hacked into government computers and tried to hide his tracks. How is that oppressive?

TEN YEARS house arrest and the threat of SIXTY YEARS or even DEATH for the sake of taking a look through some open Windows?!

So that is not oppressive?

60 years and/or death would be the maximum punishment. More often than not, most judges would take into account his mental issues (if any) and give him a far lower sentence. Try not to look at the maximum and then blow it out of proportion.

Such "sudden death" should not be possible/allowed as a penalty/consequence of such a hopelessly insecure Windows that have been left open to all. The danger and threat is crazily disproportionate to the ease that someone could wander/blunder in, regardless of whether deliberate or accidental.

For example, we have railings on balconies and doors on lifts. I'm sure the criminality would be judged to be against the owners who did not ensure there was very obviously required adequate protection in place to protect from harm the casual passer-by, or even a determined passing idiot.

So?... America has a new unwritten law: Peek through open Windows and be hounded to a persecuted death.

Wrong analogy. More like you know there's a government facility nearby and you believe they are hiding evidence of alien UFOs, so you break in past the barbed wire fences, work your way through a security door and start messing around with things, then you cover your tracks on the way out.

He wasn't simply "peering in an open window". He proactively went to great lengths to get into what he wasn't authorized to access (your opinion of Windows security flaws aside, as this could have just as easily happened to an un-patched version of *nix as well).

... Gary McKinnon was a hacker who hacked into government computers and tried to hide his tracks. How is that oppressive?

TEN YEARS house arrest and the threat of SIXTY YEARS or even DEATH for the sake of taking a look through some open Windows?!

So that is not oppressive?


Such "sudden death" should not be possible/allowed as a penalty/consequence of such a hopelessly insecure Windows that have been left open to all. The danger and threat is crazily disproportionate to the ease that someone could wander/blunder in, regardless of whether deliberate or accidental.

For example, we have railings on balconies and doors on lifts. I'm sure the criminality would be judged to be against the owners who did not ensure there was very obviously required adequate protection in place to protect from harm the casual passer-by, or even a determined passing idiot.


So?... America has a new unwritten law: Peek through open Windows and be hounded to a persecuted death.


Yep: That is clearly hugely disproportionate.

Only in America, aided and abetted by the UK?

All in our only world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

And we did do spy swaps in the cold war.

Yes, the Krogers, Peter and Helen comes to mind here.
The most formidable spy couple ever to get caught in
the act in the UK.

All in all I do wonder if the British justice system should
have handled this Mckinnon business. Understandable in the
circumstances since he committed the crime whilst on British
soil. This was a posibility but the legal bods of both countries
decided to try the case in the USA, I feel they made the wrong
decision here. Most probably too been less resistance against him standing
for trial. Mind you, the American's have finally got their hands
on the hook man (Abu Hamza al-Masri) at last. I do suspect under the
circumstances that Abu Hamaz was the one the American juditial system
was most satisfied in getting their hands on, Mckinnon, well, you
would have just got no sense out of him.

A new extradition treaty between the British and the USA was agreed
upon in 2003. and since this time the USA have made 130 applications
for extradition from the UK of which 10 have been turned down.
The UK have made 54 applications for extradition from the USA of which
16 have been turned down.

As can be seen, the UK turn down 1 in 13 USA applications.
...............the USA turn down 1 in 3 UK applications.

I suspect that the difference is down to set criteria's for
qualifying for extradition put in place by each country.
Here the USA most probably sets stricter rules for qualification and
had this Mckinnon extradition been the other way around and it was the
UK applying then there is every chance this application would have been
turned down, by the USA, too.

Yes, my earlier synopsis, the legal bods made the wrong decision, they
should have gone for trial in the UK for they failed to take into consideration
medical factors that could halt the extradition to the USA.
I don't see any reason why they don't now go for trial here in the UK.
The risk that he may attempt to commit suicide much abates now so easier for
our judicial system to question him and decide then what to do with him to
keep him out of harms way.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Pussy Riot were trying to use their freedom of speech, of which they do not have in Russia. Gary McKinnon was a hacker who hacked into government computers and tried to hide his tracks. How is that oppressive?

Meanwhile, how many Americans are serving 60 years or more for criminally leaving Windows wide open for anyone anywhere in the world to simply 'walk in' unchallenged to access that same data?


This all sounds more like a witch hunt and retribution and making a stark example rather than anything useful, let alone proportionate or 'fair'.

Russia has the Pussy Riot fiasco. America has the Gary McKinnon oppressive persecution.


All in our only world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

He did commit treason against the USA...

He is an American Citizen?

I should have mentioned from that category of crimes not just treason but spying
too which is the one applicable here.....my error.

And we did do spy swaps in the cold war.

Have you managed to find any other document regarding federal imprisonment
and the potential for home country repatriation?

Other than the page I think you quoted http://www.justice.gov/criminal/oeo/iptu/guidelines.html no.

Looks like the courts out on this one then Gary...(joke)

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

No, people can and do escape having their day before a judge if it's deemed
their not medically fit to stand for trial.

In most legal systems I'm aware of that, medical fitness, is determined by Judge and or Jury. Hard to say they don't go before a judge in that case.

An independent Psychiatrists post examination makes the recommendation on
fitness to stand trial. The judge then is led by this recommendation and is
highly unlikely to go against the Psychiatrists decision.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

The carer argument was just an example of how people are made to be responsible.


If he hid his activities away from his caretaker (mother?) by doing it at his girlfriend's house, that only strengthens the argument that he knew what he was doing was wrong and tried to hide it.

Apparently the acts were committed at the home of his girl friends Aunt. Cannot see how you tie a carer in there.

He did commit treason against the USA...

He is an American Citizen?

I should have mentioned from that category of crimes not just treason but spying
too which is the one applicable here.....my error.

And we did do spy swaps in the cold war.

Have you managed to find any other document regarding federal imprisonment
and the potential for home country repatriation?

Other than the page I think you quoted http://www.justice.gov/criminal/oeo/iptu/guidelines.html no.

---

No, people can and do escape having their day before a judge if it's deemed
their not medically fit to stand for trial.

In most legal systems I'm aware of that, medical fitness, is determined by Judge and or Jury. Hard to say they don't go before a judge in that case.

---

Difficult to apportion blame on to the carer unless it can be proved that the carer could have known or suspected to have known that he was committing a
crime via the use of a computer. The carer would fairly need to be quite
computer literate themselves...I suspect his mother has never touched a
computer in her life.

Sorry, but that excuse doesn't work. If you don't know what the person you're caring for is doing, it's your fault for not being more involved in their daily lives.

No, people can and do escape having their day before a judge if it's deemed their not medically fit to stand for trial.

No, they have a default judgement made against them as there is no point to determine if they knew what they were doing was wrong, but the crime doesn't go without sentencing of some sort. For example, mentally unstable people can be sentenced to mandatory life in an asylum depending on the severity of their illness.