The Westminster government ought to hang their heads in shame at the result of the legal appeal against Garry Mackinnon.
Disregarding the fact the judges may be correct in their assessment of the law, what is most important here is who signed an agreement between the UK and the US which is a one-way extradition agreement only of benefit to the US?
Garry Mackinnon allegedly threw the security system of the US into chaos when he was looking for evidence about UFOs. The man used freely available software to get into secure US websites. This alleged offence occurred in 2003 but no action was taken for a few years and he was completely free to continue his computer activities until 2005.
Then the US pounced and decided he was a threat to their nation. His mother and lawyers been down every avenue to explain Garry's personality and reasons, along with Garry himself.
Even so, the European Court of Human Rights agree that he must be sent to the US.
No political party has done anything to help this man, but he's been given much synthetic sympathy from every party. Gordon Brown sympathises. Aye right.
Someone, in the Westminster government. signed an extradition agreement with the US which stated that any UK citizen who allegedly committed a crime, here in the UK, against the security of their country should be sent to the US for trial. Nobody had the sense to insist that the agreement was mutual.
What is going on between the UK government and the US? Thankfully we are now learning about these 'secret' agreements but who is signing them? Why are we still in the 'pay' of the US?
I thought we paid the final installment of our interest-loaded debt to the US a couple of years ago - for the loan they gave to Britain after WW2. Indeed they did save us from bankruptcy but we've paid most handsomely throughout my lifetime. Why are we still in their debt?
Most of all I would like to know who signed this agreement and why.
Posts
19 comments:
The answers to your question are here:
http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/UKUS-extradition-traety
- for the UK, David Blunkett, Home Secretary at the time;
- for the US, John Ashcroft, Attorney General at the time;
- signed on 31 March 2003.
It is indeed a one-sided and iniquitous treaty. 'New Labour' have proved themselves to be by far the most illiberal and authoritarian, as well as fiscally incompetent, government the UK has had in a very long time, certainly during my lifetime (i.e. since the early 1950s). And David Blunkett was one of the most hopeless Home Secretaries that 'New Labour' produced and there is serious competition for that accolade amongst his fellow Home Secretaries since 1997.
Michael Howard was often charged with being a repressive Home Secretary, but I simply don't believe he or any other Conservative Cabinet Minister would have contemplated signing such a one-sided treaty. They passed lots of bad laws, for sure, but nothing as universally grotesque as this, with the possible exception of the notorious 'Clause 28' (also known as 'Section 2a') of the Local Government Act 1986, repealed finally in 2003 (2000 in Scotland).
I fear that these things are coordinated at the G# meetings (or rather, the gatherings behind the media events).
What happens in the US happens here. By design.
It worries me that prisons are big business in the US. There have been thousands of miscarriages of justice and I wonder how much of it is due to the fact that US prisons get paid for each incarceree - while they are incarcerated.
Buggering system. It is flawed.
Good morning Bill. Thank you very much for the answer. I did try to find the info before I did the post but obviously your googling skills are far better than mine.
I agree, I also very much doubt any other party would consider signing a one way agreement such as this.
Fausty good morning. I thought we also paid prisons per incarceree because how else can prisons operate? I shall see if I can find out more about the US system.
Who signed it and why?
Who, is a matter of phyical record but why?
Easy that one, it was to allow the removal of potential / supposed terrorists to the USA because the burden of proof in the UK would be greater and the likelihood of conviction lower.
Problem solved, get them out of the UK and into the US justice system. We don't want these troublemakers and the legal arguments clogging up our legal system and compromising our security services by exposing their inadequacies.
Mission creep arrives and now we can be extradited to the US for farting in public and whistling Dixie in the Washington.
Reciprocity in the treaty was never the object. It was always going to be one way, to the benefit of the usual suspects.
Now we see the great deceit exposed.
Morning Billy. Yes I would agree with that reasoning. There are plenty more deceits waiting in the wings no doubt.
and Gary MacKinnon is the test case, as was the case of the three bankers.
The dummy runs sort out the procedures and test the vulnerabilities of the law so that it works later like clockwork.
Gary MacKinnon will get a suspended sentence or maybe offered some sort of consultancy there to prove how agnanimous the US justice system really is. So don't be afraid.
I am a devious bastard.
Just finished Tom Harris' latest thriller Ghost, reviewed here. Thesis is that Blair was a CIA asset, hence his habitual and slavish pro-US line. Harris makes a very convincing argument - when you collect together all the facts, it seems obvious. There's a twist in the tail, though - but I won't spoil it for you.
Brown is every bit as much of an Atlantacist as Blair. It was fun seeing Obama giving him a box of CDs as a gift - as contemptuous as Bush greeting his predecessor with 'Yo, Blair'. Still, Gordon won't care - the money's good.
Having worked in IT security at one time I think Mackinnon is a victim of the corporate need to make an example of anyone they catch. Most hackers are not caught, and there are probably many hacks which organisations do not even notice, let alone apprehend the perpetrators.
When self-interest and vested interests combine in political governance - most 'signed off' agreements, policies and laws are there to make cash, stump up pay backs or to seek 'promised' rewards for someone. I admit many are imposed - see NHS EWHD in todays papers. This latest toot from the EU desk-jockeys will only further deprofessionalise etc. our medics and have seriously damaging sequelae for patients.
The imposition of EWHD will send our medics packing, in even greater numbers, to make other career choices, conform to inadequate post-grad training 'programmes' but mostly as a free cohort of expensively educated and skilled practitioners to Australia, New Zealand and Canada etc.. Thousands, yes thousands, have left the UK in the last few years. Brillant!
Already we hear of NHS management (not exactly known for its razor-sharp perception or initiative)telling jumior doctors to doctor their timesheets. More "sexed up" documents or should that be "redaction"? As - to walk away on the dot of EWHD 48 hrs per week would indicate that the law of unintended consequences (or the bleedin' obvious) is not a concept familiar to the muppets in NHS management - but one that will become apparent when mounting cases in need of medical care that cannot be provided start piling up in ambulances or private cars in hospital car-parks - absolutely spiffing!
The government have been continually warned about this by the medics, who have even presented the hard evidence from pilot studies of introducing EWHD - but to no avail. Will we be as outraged as we rightly are over the case of Mr McKinnon when medics are hung out to dry because of government failure to protect the principles of the NHS?
In Scotland we are a little better off through luck of better staffing numbers already in place than down south but, keep healthy everyone.
The UK should not send any of its citizens to countries that have the death penalty...even though it will not apply in this case. It is said he could face up to 60 years in jail, whereas in the UK it might be up 2 years in jail max or a slap on the wrist.
The US should drop the case, pay him USD 250,000 and bring him over as a consultant to show them how he hacked their computers using a dial-up modem and allow them to install appropriate security systems. Perhaps, those in the US defense department responsible for the lack of online security should be in court.
You are indeed Billy but certainly one with much foresight (and hindsight).
Ghost goes on my order list at the library Vronsky. Mind you, I'm still waiting for Blind Eye, the new Stuart McBride thriller.
I've never thought about it from that angle at all and I'm sure you're quite right. After all I'm told hacking isn't too difficult for most techies.
I wonder if Obama will intervene and to make himself the Loved One over here.
hindsight?
Strangely enough Clarinda I was talking to someone earlier today who was concerned about this too, a retire anaesthetist. He was saying the same - doctors will move because they can't get enough hours towards promotion and also standards will fall.
Pleased to know Scotland is slightly better off but such a shame for England. I do hope my English readers pick up your comment.
I've heard that opinion before Dave and it makes much more sense. Haven't heard a word about who was responsible for the lack at the other end. Anything ever been in the US press?
... obviously your googling skills are far better than mine.
Hi Subrosa. Maybe ;) , but in fact I knew the answers already; I've written many posts over the years about this Extradition Treaty, before and after it was ratified. I put the link in to back up my remarks. I haven't written about the present case (unlike the 'Natwest Three') because I am somewhat doubtful of the virtue of Garry Mackinnon's case and did not feel, frankly, that I could write in suppport of his case, having tried to find out as much as I could about the facts of the case. Just because it's a bad treaty does not mean there are not some people who must be called to account for their actions. I preferred to remain silent.
Good evening, Subrosa!
Global Research outlines the prison population problem. GR tends towards conspiracy-type stories but it often does outstanding research, most of which can be corroborated.
Bill, you've reminded me you did write analysis of the bankers extradition. I think that was the first time I read your blog.
I can understand your reluctance to decide in this particular case and remain silent.
Good evening to you Fausty!
I read GR (thanks to Clarinda shoving me back in its direction) but have not read this particular article. Will do so forthwith!
Post a Comment