andrewducker (
andrewducker) wrote2009-07-31 11:25 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Gary McKinnon
Can anyone explain to me, in nice simple English, why we shouldn't be extraditing a convicted hacker to the country where he commited the crime? It really does seem like an open and shut case to me, and I'm baffled why some people seem to think it's wrong.
I'm clearly missing something - can someone explain it to me?
I'm clearly missing something - can someone explain it to me?
no subject
no subject
no subject
Cue Life of Brian gourd haggling scene.
Ahem. Sorry. I do feel strongly that this guy is being fed to the wolves but at the same time, if someone committed a crime against this country, wouldn't we want them tried here in principle? Tough one.
no subject
no subject
And it has now been ratified - it was ratified in 2006, three years after we put it into action ourselves. which means it's reciprocal, and has been for three years.
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
no subject
no subject
Apart from whether this chap will get a fair hearing, there is a financial principle: if this chap has committed a crime and if the victims of that crime want to bring charges, or have charges brought on their behalf, shouldn't it the victim country that pays for the costs of prosecution? The alternative is that the UK Taxpayer foots the bill for a UK-based case which is not reasonable.