Print 61 comment(s) - last by Viditor.. on Apr 17 at 9:59 AM

Gary McKinnon is currently fighting extradition to the United States

The attorney for Briton Gary McKinnon, the biggest US military hacker ever, has said that McKinnon is afraid he will be prosecuted under US anti-terror laws -- which the attorney says could send him to Guantanamo Bay.  McKinnon allegedly broke into 97 government computers to try and find evidence the US government knows about UFOs but has been concealing information about extraterrestrial life.  His illegal activities allegedly caused around $700,000 of damage.  He hacked into the government computers in 14 different states, including U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, NASA and Pentagon systems.  

A UK judge previously asked the US government for some sort of reassurance that McKinnon would be charged in federal court and not under any anti-terror laws.  District Judge Nicholas Evans will announce the decision whether or not McKinnon will be extradited on May 10.  If McKinnon is extradited, unless he has an agreement made with the federal government, anti-terror charges could be filed.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: ?
By TomZ on 4/14/2006 3:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
I can't picture the US sending a citizen to a place that would bypass a trial.

He's not a U.S. citizen, otherwise it would be even that much more difficult for the government to send him there.

You have to wonder whether the government believes that this guy had some real ties to terrorists, that maybe the UFO story was made up. I don't know anything about the actual situation...just speculating here. The reason I wonder is that I would think the government would know it would get a lot of criticism if it is perceived that these military prisons were being abused. There has been a lot of scrutiny and criticism to date, and I'd be surprised if they would push their luck.

RE: ?
By Decaydence on 4/14/2006 3:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
Tomz, don't bring your horrible lack of understanding to bear on my posts please. I never claimed he was a US citizen, I used that as an example so that people here could understand where these people are coming from. As in, England won't send someone somewhere that won't afford them a trial, just as we won't.

RE: ?
By TomZ on 4/14/2006 4:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
Tomz, don't bring your horrible lack of understanding to bear on my posts please.

Don't get on my case because you didn't communicate your point clearly. You were discussing the guy and his defense, then said that "I can't picture the US sending a citizen to a place that would bypass a trial." Any reasonable person reading that would think you were saying he was a U.S. citizen.

You also accuse me of having a lack of understanding, but your own post shows that you are the one with the lack of understanding. You said, "The whole point is that the United States is now misusing terrorism laws in order to bypass the legal system." You are way off on this, since the linked article clearly states that the "The US Embassy in London produced a note for the court stating that McKinnon would not face military charges ." The article also states nothing about the US having indicated it would do anything of the sort. This article is just based on the "technical possibility," (quoting the article again) i.e., complete speculation. So how exactly does this show how the US abusing anti-terror laws?

Finally, don't tell me where I can and cannot post replies. If you don't like the discussion, please refrain from posting in the first place.

RE: ?
By Tegeril on 4/14/2006 9:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, any reasonable person wouldn't think that he was saying the guy was a U.S. citizen. It was clear the first time, you made it confusing.

RE: ?
By ToeCutter on 4/15/2006 12:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's all about perspective. I took his description as "citizen" to mean a "civilian" as opposed to a "soldier". This is distinction is relevent due to the discussion of a military tribunal, which one would assume to apply only to soldiers.

“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki