The US is still fighting hard to extradite Gary McKinnon. It seems the accused British hacker, who has Asperger's, is very much without friends in Parliament.
The threats come from US Attorney General, Eric Holder, who told London Tonight that the US is determined to get McKinnon extradited and would not give up. He told the ITV programme that the alleged hacker was a "person who committed serious crimes", which resulted in about $1 million worth of damages in the United States.
He added that seven judges in the UK had already decided that "extradition was appropriate," sticking the boot in further by citing the previous Home Secretary Alan Johnson, who, he says, agreed extradition was appropriate.
Mr McKinnon has been facing a lengthly fight since 2001 after he was accused of hacking into 97 computers operated by the U.S. government. At the time he claimed that he'd been looking for evidence of UFO cover ups, which had led him to look at files held by the Pentagon, Army, Air Force and NASA.
Back in 2008, McKinnon was diagnosed with Asperger's after losing one of many fights against his extradition order.
Although Mr Mckinnon said at the time this could explain his success in hacking into the computers, he made it clear that it did not contribute in his willingness to do it.
However, human rights groups insist he be trialled in the UK.
In July last year, it seemed as though McKinnon would have some help from high places when Prime Minister David Cameron moved to prevent his extradition, claiming that he should face time in a British prison if convicted.
The Lib Dems also believed McKinnon should not face extradition. But Deputy PM Nick Clegg, after seizing some power in parliament, said the the UK may not have the means to halt an earlier court decision allowing McKinnon to be extradited.
It was a strong contradiction to previous statements, where he pointed the finger at then Home Secretary Alan Johnson - claiming that he had the power to make changes to the law which would allow McKinnon to be tried in Britain.
On hearing the latest, Janis Sharp, McKinnon's mother, said: “Pre-election, David Cameron and Nick Clegg had both said that Gary can and must be tried in the UK."
Times have obviously changed.
"TechEye" wrongly states 'he made it clear that it (Aspergers) did not contribute in his willingness to do it.'
Mr McKinnon did not say the above words you attribute to him, click on your own link for the source and please correct.
Mr McKinnon has many friends in Parliament which is why the Extradition has been halted.
However with U.S Attorney General Eric Holder publicly stating on TV that McKinnon is guilty, it's clear he could not get a fair Trial in the U.S.
CPS Disclosure proved that America had provided not one scrap of evidence of the alleged damage, without which the offence was not extraditable.
The extradition allegations by the US are grossly overblown and have been shown in court to be without any foundation at all - there are in fact no grounds for reasonable suspicion that McKinnon caused a single dollar of damage. As such, extradition would not be legal in these circs - hence the growing political and public opposition to this unwarranted extradition.
In addition, the US Attorney General's recent rather peculiar pronouncement of McKinnon's guilt has put paid to any possibility that McKinnon would receive a fair trial in America. Notwithstanding the US's rather improper- and vindictive-looking insistence on the continued pursuit of McKinnon, it would seem the extradition is looking less and less likely, and that justice will prevail after all.
Since it's highly unlikely that you want to give up public trials or the state refraining from charging those whom it actually believes to be innocent. I infer that you just grabbed for the first plausible-sounding argument that came to you when you wrote “with U.S Attorney General Eric Holder publicly stating on TV that Mc Kinnon is guilty, it's clear he could not get a fair Trial in the U.S.”
Further, Mc Kinnon's alleged offense certainly *is* extraditable, though it apparently does not *require* extradition.
Regardless of whatever Mc Kinnon's actual offense, and regardless of whether he should be tried in the US or in the UK, I note that he has an awful lot of noisy defenders who just make-up their arguments as they go along.
See my response to Jay. If you folks are going to parrot talking points, then at least think-through those points.
For Holder to claim that Mc Kinnon is guilty no more undermines his ability to receive a fair trail here than would the public bringing of charges in the UK undermine a defendants ability to receive a fair trial there.
And, like Jay, you present a false dichotomy in which an extradition which is not required is not permitted. There are three sorts of cases with respect to extradition: those for which it is required, those for which it is not required but is permitted, and those for which it is forbidden.