AddewidBank Everywhere
I’ll do it, but only if you’ll help

Pledge “FreeGary”

"I will Make a Representation to the Home Secretary on behalf of Gary McKinnon but only if 10 United Kingdom voters will do likewise."

— George, UK supporter of Gary McKinnon (contact)

- Dylid arwyddo cyn: 8 Mehefin 2006
arwyddwyd gan 745 person (735 dros y targed)

Gwlad Y Deyrnas Unedig

Mwy o fanylion
I will make a Representation to the Home Secretary, Rt. Hon. John Reid MP, to stop the Extradition of Gary McKinnon to the United States of America, where he faces charges of "hacking" into US Military computer systems.

Gary McKinnon is not entirely innocent, however, he is 40 years old, and is facing a possible sentence of over 60 years in prison and a million dollar fine i.e. a disproportionately harsher sentence than for violent criminals or terrorists, which he clearly is not.

Unlike the British Guantanamo Bay detainees, Gary is actually accused of "attacking" the US Military, and so cannot expect a fair trial in the USA.

Gary McKinnon should be tried in the United Kingdom, under the UK Computer Misuse Act 1990

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukp...

which should take precedence over any foreign laws, since he committed the alleged offences physically in London, where he was arrested and released without charge in 2002.

The unequal and unfair UK-US Extradition Treaty

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/...

means that no prima facie evidence of the alleged "damage" which he is alleged to have done has been brought before a UK Court, where it could be challenged. If the UK Government wanted to extradite somone from the USA, then they would have to provide such reasonable prima facie evidence to a court in the USA.

You can send an email or a letter to:

Home Secretary Rt Hon. John Reid MP
c/o Direct Communications Unit
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

email: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gov.uk

website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk

They should acknowledge your email or letter within 20 working days at most.

Representations need to be made within 6 weeks from May 10th 2006 i.e. by Wednesday 21st June 2006. Postal letters should probably be sent no later than Monday 19th June 2006.

For more information and comments see

http://FreeGary.org.uk

Sylwadau ar yr addewid hwn

Gan fod cymaint o sylwadau, dim ond y 50 diweddaraf sy'n ymddangos ar y dudalen hon.

Dangos y sylwadau i gyd

• I really think that this should not be a Us vs. UK issue. As an American citizen myself, I sincerely am opposed to the one way extradition practice. I am also VERY interested to know if there was any proof found that the US has covered up any UFO information. PLEASE post images if you have them. The thing is that if the government of the US is hiding UFO information and being less than truthful with the people who are burdened with paying the bill, then that could lead to criminal action for members of the US government. I really think that the US government has greater problems than a 40 year old hacker looking for flying saucers. Were overrun with illegal immigrants stealing our identities over here. Our health system is failing economically, we have a very expensive war on our hands. Shouldn't we spend our tax dollars on fixing those things as well as the security on our government networks rather than wasting money prosecuting and jailing some poor guy who is poking around looking for ET?
  Tom, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Pls do not extradite Gary McKinnon to the U.S. Pls bring him to justice in England, but know that he was simply seeking the truth because governments have been disingenuous toward its citizens who deserve the truth.
  Governing by canards is showing disrespect for its citizenry, and despite USA citizens sleepwalking, we are disgusted, yet to lilylivered to overthrow the USA plutocracy for deliberate and constant lying.
  
  We know Brits are more intellectually and politically savvy than U.S. Americans, so do what is right:
  Gary McKinnon should NOT be extradited to the U.S. for sleuthing for the truth. Dispense British justice.
  
  
  Washington, DC, USA
  Barbara, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Can everybody making comments on this pledge please stop and think of Garys
  situation.Gary not only deleted files,
  it also took 8 security departments from the U.S.criminal investigations unit to the N.A.S.A. office of national security 17 months to track his path.Do you know how much these guys are paid per hour?There were no honeypots,Gary,for you to be caught. If you wanted to play the war games nerd you should have reported the security problems to the security services on day one.Gary at a time of national security problems you diverted
  the resources of the allied intelligence services to investigate,quote,"your little game".
  Even the British taxpayers were hit with a Security bill.Hacking is a crime.
  The law is there to protect us all incase sites are unprotected and hackers enter.If everyone used passwords all the time there would be no need for the law...So stop blaming the man who left his back door open.
  Now Gary you are guilty as charged and I sentence you to 60 years in prison..
  However, the Great British public have pledged £1 million pounds in compensation to the CHILDREN OF IRAQ
  and you have agreed to work for a childrens charity in the third world for three years.Teaching them computer skills.(NO HACKING)
  EDMUND, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• You sound as though you are a US military man Edmund.Have I got that right?
  I think you ought to get a sense of perspective here rather than the usual overkill.
  Gary "trespassed" in cyberspace; he walked in because the US military computer security is so unbelievably bad. This is the world's superpower we're talking about here.
  
  So ten years after Mathew Bevan was accused of virtually the same crime, the military's security is as bad or worse than ever. Hmmm
  
  Go and tell a terrorist that leaving doors open doesn't matter and that our laws are there to prevent them from walking straight in!!! Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds?
  Wonder how Osama Bin Forgotten would view this?
  
  The US government should be very glad that it was Gary who alerted them to how lax their security is.
  
  Murderers and rapists are often sentenced to a few years. To even consider sending someone like Gary to prison for years is just ludicrous and way, way out of proportion.
  
  Gary is being made a scapegoat because the US Military are embarrassed that anyone could just walk right in and look around.
  Can you imagine how this will go down with the American public when they get wind of it!!!! OH OH! An election's coming up soon.
  
  Get Gary to sign something saying he won't talk or write about it and let it go, or this may well backfire hugely on the US government.
  
  There is no victim. The intelligence forces have to spend vast amounts of money all the time to secure their systems.
  No good spending fortunes on tracking people down; much better to spend money securing your systems first before the horse has bolted.
  
  To wait until ten years after Mathew Bevan was accused of the same crime and the military systems still aren't secure just isn't sensible. Are any military I.T. personell being prosecuted?
  Has America signed the new extradition "treaty" yet? No?
  Thought not....and they never will.
  So how then can this be called a treaty?
  
  Oh yeah, the US can take UK citizens on a whim but we can't take a US citizen without Prima Facie evidence!
  
  Does that sound fair to you Edmund?
  Come on, sign the treaty America! Oops! forgot, that won't go down well with the Irish American lobby and it's against the US constitution.
  Sign the treaty or leave UK citizens alone.
  Free Gary!
  
  Liberty, egalite, fraternity.
  
  Jay
  Jay, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Gary,
  I hear you man, governments cannot be fully trusted, but dude, ease up on the anti-American rhetoric. Remember there are two sides to America: the fascist and the right. So orient your complaints toward the liberals. They are the ones who have brought you this endless system of laws that you face if extradited. We're lucky to not yet have laws controlling our nose picking behavior. Good luck on your case.
  Jeff, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Thursday 15 June 2006
  
  From my own experience, I've found that when I tie my political crimes to any crimes committed by agents of the American government, the American government covers up my crimes--Ooops, I meant my "political" crimes.
  
  If Gary wasn't totally wasted on bad beer (lager?? Any amount of alcohol shrinks the brain according to the BPC or is it the BBC--I can't remember? But, at least dark beer tastes good) and wasted on proven memory erasing drugs, he should try to remember any information concerning crimes by the U.S. military, that he saw during his hacks.
  
  If he can remember any to tell his solicitor, DON'T even dream of grey-mailing the U.S. government. He doesn't have to. You see, the U.S. government is so powerful that it doesn't negotiate, co-operate, or communicate. It'll just drop the charges and ignore him. It's that all-powerful.
  
  I'm not advocating that Gary continue to commit political crimes if he can connect crimes committed by members of the U.S. government to his crimes--Ooops, I meant his "political" crimes. What I am posting is that Gary is not that bad of a bloke, but his new friends in the Pentagon are.
  Eochaidh MacDhalaigh OghaChruithne, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• EDMUND A U.S. MILITARY MAN?
  Your aving a laugh aint ya.
  Gazza wos nabbed by the old bill and is in a 2 and 8 coz the geezer grassed
  the yanks up to the fleet street boys.
  He did the dirty by going inta no go
  security land and got pinched.He thinks if he spilled the beans on the yanks bout the old E.T.codswallop they will let im do a runner.Now leave it out with the old yank bashing cos me old man fought on the front line with em.He thinks the yanks are diamond geezers and come to think of it Ive never met a badun...Now leave it out with the old EDMUNDs A U.S.MILITARY MAN STUFF coz its a load of old cods...
  EDMUND, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Could I remind everyone who has pledged - today (Monday) is the last day to send your written representation to the Home Secretary.
  
  Representations posted tomorrow may reach the Home Secretary by Wednesday but this is unlikely because Royal Mail are shit.
  
  You can always e-mail, of course.
  Kayleigh, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Yeah, Free Gary! I'm from the U.S., and let me tell you, growing up a Nerd here in the 80's sucked. (although I was never a hacker--I was more of an artistic nerd, weilding a paintbrush, in case you're listening, DARPA--Don't put me on your list) And now, as an adult, it still sucks, especially now in this revival of the Reagan
  era.
  
  A US jail is the last place Gary should be. A bunch of tough, gangbanger motherfuckers in a jail harrassing this kid. I shudder to think of it.
  
  To my fellow Americans out there: Consider this. You know how nerds are treated when around gangbangers. This is cruel and unusual punishment! This is torture!
  Floating Tuxedo, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Too many secrets in this world free gary he did nothing wrong .about time they told the truth about ufo,s
  David smith, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• This is my open letter to John Reid, the Home Secretary.
  
  Dear John Reid,
  I am writing to ask you not to extradite Gary Mckinnon to America, to face a possible sixty years in prison for unauthorised computer access re- the Pentagon's computer system.
  
  Unauthorised computer access and even hacking, should never be an extraditable offence as it helps to expose the countries weakness of their security systems. This exposure is better done by citizens from friendly nations rather than by terrorists or enemies of that country and should encourage those with poor security to tighten up their security systems against any possible enemy hackers from unfriendly countries.
  
  There are bilateral treaties which do not require prima facie evidence, but they are equal in both directions.
  The new European Arrest Warrant makes this so in the European Union countries which have signed up.
  Only the UK-USA seems to have this peculiar lopsided arrangement.
  
  Many countries including the USA, would not extradite their own citizens without prima facie evidence having to be given.
  In many countries hacking is not even considered to be a crime.
  There are many countries which will simply not allow the extradition of their nationals abroad under any circumastances e.g. Japan., but will try them at home on evidence from overseas.
  
  Gary's evidence/hard drives were in the UK and were (possibly "illegally") taken to and left in America.
  Having the evidence in the UK would afford Gary more rights to be tried in his own country, so the UK have actively acted against one of their own citizens and have thus contributed to attempt to prevent him from having a trial in his own country.
  
  As you know; the UK government recently released illegal immigrants that included child abusers, rapists and murderers by mistake and many are still free in this country.
  Yet our same government wants to extradite Gary McKinnon who has no previous criminal record and has never hurt anyone.
  
  Mr McKinnon's parents have fostered twent four children in the past four years and have given these children a fresh start in life.
  It is therefore all the more ironic that they have had the worry of this proposed extradition of their only child, hanging over their heads for four years.
  Mr McKinnon's parents also make community films which are regularly screened on television and they have written much loved children's books which are stocked in many primary schools and in Foyle's bookshops.
  Gary McKinnon is a musician who has written and performed music for his parent's community film. They have a very small but very close family; many of whom work for social services.
  
  Gary McKinnon and his family, are a good example of a caring, creative and honourable family. They work to help the community; they foster disadvantaged children, they produce independent community/social films and write and illustrate children's books.
  These are not the kind of people who should be made an example of.
  
  Our government want to just hand Gary McKinnon over to America, to face a possible outrageous sixty years imprisonment in an American prison for a crime that is far from serious and where there is no real victim.
  This is so out of proportion that it is making fools out of both the British and the American government in the eyes of the world.
  
  The British people and parliament were told that this unsigned and unratified extradition "treaty"? was to be used for terrorists but it is being used against white collar workers such as Gary McKinnon and the Nat West Three, none of whom are terrorists.
  
  America will never sign this "treaty" as it would be against their constitution to do so. The Irish American lobby are also very against this treaty ever being signed by America and it will never happen.
  
  Gary McKinnon did not hack into the US military sites, he had no need as there were no passwords. Gary trespassed, it was unauthorised access, no more.
  Ten years after Mathew Bevan was accused of virtually the same crime, the US military have still not improved their security and their systems were and probably still are as vulnerable as ever.
  Mathew Bevan had the good fortune to be tried in the UK, in his own country.
  
  Everyone knows you don't use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It just doesn't make sense.
  
  Free Gary, let him apologise, let him teach kids not to go trespassing in secret areas of cyberworld and let the US military get in some security experts who understand IT.
  Don't shoot the messenger or no one will get the message.
  
  You don't extradite people for unauthorised computer access without looking like extremists, it just doesn't make sense.
  Gary isn't a good distraction from Osama Bin Forgotten?
  
  The US government was once respected as being the good guys; their image has been tarnished and they are now being viewed by much of the world as somewhat power crazed global bullies.
  Perhaps the Pentagon should be investigating why its allegedly so-very-important IT systems did not even have the most cursory forms of protection in place; protection that even the computer you are using now to read this is likely to have installed.
  
  Please don't hand our citizens over to America unless they are murderers or are accused of heinous crimes and please don't make computer intrusion an extraditable offence. It is totally out of proportion and goes against all sense of natural justice.
  The potential punishment in this case does not fit the crime and the potential sentence was not a deterrent, because it was not even known to the likes of Gary that either extradition or this out of proportion sentence could even be a remote possibility.
  
  The American civilian establishments/universities Gary trespassed into have stated that Gary caused no damage. They were then removed from the original indictment by the US military/government who don't appear to want this known. This is a cause for concern.
  Gary denies causing damage. The US have to claim damage as without a certain amount of financial damage they cannot extradite Gary. So magically there is supposedly a certain amount of damage.
  
  The computers were shut down because the military found out Gary had accessed their computers without authorisation.
  Any corporate business would have had their computers up and running again the same day and would have had tighter security in the first place.
  This is the worlds superpower we're talking about. Surely they can afford to pay for IT security workers who know what they're doing and have back up systems in place.
  
  So one little computer nerd (who is far from an expert) supposedly shuts down the entire US military network at a stroke on a primitive and pathetic dial up machine from his girlfriends flat!!!
  If this becomes common knowledge it will belittle the US security system in the eyes of the world and will make the US government look very foolish and will inflame and outrage US citizens. No one wants this.
  
  There is no victim and no crime other than trespassing, as the doors were wide open. There were no passwords and no firewalls.
  Nothing has been stolen, there were only blank, therefore no passwords to steal.
  
  Since when do we extradite people for trespassing, or for unauthorised computer access? It makes no sense and is an insult to British citizens and to the British legal system.
  It makes a total nonsense of this new unsigned, one sided treaty, which is already viewed as a nonsense and is making the UK government look as though it is being dictated to by the US. .
  
  People do much worse things than Gary, such as writing and sending viruses which are intended to destroy data and hard drives and to make computers inoperable. Gary didn't do any of that.
  
  President Bush and Tony Blair say they are fighting 'Terror' in the name of a free democracy.
  In doing so our civil rights, the very thing we hold close in a free world, are being eroded and we will probably never see those rights again. Soon we'll have no democracy left to fight for and we might as well be living in a hard line Islamic state.
  
  I'm sure that Gary would agree to anything and give any public apologies necessary and would give kids lectures advising them not to hack; if he could be tried in his own country. Which isn't a lot to ask.
  
  Gary and his family have had this hanging over their heads for four years and they are extremely good and kind people.
  Gary had decided to stop doing research on the internet four years ago and was wiping his drives when the Hi-Tech crime squad entered his girlfiends home, took his computer (and his girlfriends aunt's computer)and took Gary and his girlfriend to the police station. (and I think his girlfiends niece)
  They would not let Gary's girlfiend go home (or her niece) until Gary had "confessed" to unauthorised access and being the gentleman that he is; Gary did just that.
  Gary was told he would face a possible six months community service but in the end the CPS decided against prosecuting Gary.
  
  Please give this family a break, as their lives have not only been put on hold for four years but each day for them has become torment as they are so afraid for their sons future
  
  The US military's IT security was worse than anyone could imagine and trying to say that Gary is a computer genius in order to cover up their serious failings doesn't wash.
  
  The US administration have a responsibility towards their citizens to protect and care for their own people. They have failed to do this by their own premeditated negligence by knowingly setting up networks with weak security thereby threatening their own national security by being their own enemy.
  Now they seek to detract attention by using a scapegoat who has clearly caused no harm at all. It takes an IT person in an entry level security job, such as a helpdesk, to understand that the easiest access to any door, is simply to leave it open.
  
  The possible sixty year sentence that hangs over Gary McKinnon's head for his alleged crimes are wholly disproportionate. People serve a fraction of that time for murder. Yet in this case, the US Government alleges that one man on a two bit computer on dial up mode, shut down their systems.
  This is completely shocking and potentialy hugely embarrassing for the US government and is probably the reason they will try to have Gary tried in secret.
  It would have been much easier if they had just let Gary go and no one would have been any the wiser. Or let Gary be tried in his own country to face a proportionate sentence.
  It was the US lack of passwords and basic firewall security that caused them to have to shut down their own systems.
  
  Please Free Gary.
  
  Please don't extradite anyone for unauthorised computer intrusion. You will only be contributing to the imprisonment of UK citizens in the US; whilst foreign hackers who may be dangerous will not be deterred.
  
  Only by having good amateur UK hackers, will ours and America's government computer systems be continually tested by unpaid computer hobbyists. Better this than to have foreign hackers inside our computer systems without anyone knowng.
  
  If Gary is extradited his parents will have to stop fostering groups of underprivileged siblings, which will in turn prevent those children from having a better chance in life.
  Instead Gary's parents will be forced to spend much of their time in America to be with and to campaign on behalf of their son.
  Gary's mother has a strong sense of justice and Gary is her only child.
  
  If Gary were to be tried in secret in the US, Gary's mother would be standing side by side with the likes of Cindy Sheehan and would make sure that the world knew the truth; she is not the kind of mother who would lie down and roll over.
  Gary's parents have up until now chosen to keep a low profile and have hoped that the British (and American) government would see sense and refuse the extradition of their son.
  
  Gary's parents have turned down the opportunity to appear on national and international television because they did not want to become involved in the media circus. However they know that if the persecution of their son continues they will have no choice but to fight with all of their might to try and prevent what they see as a huge over reaction and out of proportion abuse of power against their only son.
  
  Please Free Gary!!! I beg you.
  
  Yours Sincerely
  
  Jay
  Jay, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Reply from the Home Office interspersed with comments from a Free Gary supporter pointing out mistakes and of just how ludicrous sections of the response from the Home Office are.
  
  Below is an example of a reply from the Home Office to a Representation to the Home Secretary on behalf of Gary McKinnon sent in by Mike.
  
  There are a couple of obvious mistakes in this Home Office reply:
  
  Reference: Tnnnnn/n
  Dear Mr aaaaa
  
  Thank you for your e-mail of 22/05/06 19:11:24 addressed to the Home Secretary, concerning a request by the USA for the extradition of Gary McKinnon who stands accused of offences connected to computer hacking.
  
  The UK has important international obligations in the area of extradition. It takes those obligations seriously. Where, as here, a request for extradition is made, those obligations become engaged and make it our duty to assist within of course, what the law permits.
  
  As to that, the US request was found to be valid (within the meaning of the 2003 Extradition Act).
  
  
  
  "Valid within the meaning of the 2003 Extradition Act" only means that the forms were addressed and filled out correctly, and that the right suspect was identified.
  
  Accordingly on 17 November 2005, the Secretary of State certified it. The effect of certifying an extradition request in this way is to place matters before the courts.
  This date when the Home Secretary "certified" the extradition request is obviously incorrect !
  
  Gary first appeared at Bow Street Magistrates' Court on the 10th June 2005
  
  He was first arrested in April 2002 and then released without charge.
  
  As you are probably aware on 10 May the court found that there was a case to answer and that the statutory barriers to surrender did not avail Mr McKinnon. The District Judge therefore sent the case to the Secretary of State for a decision as to surrender. At this point, Mr McKinnon has a statutory opportunity inside six weeks to make representations (albeit on limited grounds) against surrender.
  6 weeks from the 10th May is no later than Wednesday 21st June.
  
  You can tell from this turn of phrase that any Representations received after that date are liklely to be ignored by the Home Office.
  
  If the Secretary of State orders surrender, Mr McKinnon will be able to challenge the decision of the District Judge and/or the Secretary of State by appealing to the High Court. In this way, we hope you will at least feel assured that the procedure ensures all relevant matters are not only considered fairly and properly but are susceptible to challenge on appeal.
  Most people would consider that "all relevant matters" would actually include some, if not necessarily all, of the prima facie evidence against Gary.
  
  No evidence whatsoever has been heard during the extradition proceedings, only allegations, and vastly inflated and unsubstantiated claims for hundreds of thousands of dollars of alleged "damage".
  
  Nobody expects an extradition hearing to be a full trial, but for there not to have been any sort of sanity check by a Britiish court, and for there to have been no opportunity for Gary's defence lawyers to challenge the evidence, is utterly wrong. This is especially unfair, since that is exactly what has to happen, perfectly reasonably, in a US Court, if the UK Government wants to extradite someone from there.
  
  
  
  
  Both the old and the current legislation permit extradition for conduct committed outside the requesting state, as with the case of Gary McKinnon. This is a vital provision to combat the increasingly global nature of serious crime.
  
  
  What exactly has the "increasingly global nature of serious crime" got to do with this case ?
  
  The generally accepted definition of a Serious Crime in the United Kingdom is the one which used in, for example the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Section 81 General Interpretation
  
  
  (b) references to serious crime are references to crime that satisfies the test in subsection (3)(a) or (b).
  
  (3) Those tests are-
  
  (a) that the offence or one of the offences that is or would be constituted by the conduct is an offence for which a person who has attained the age of twenty-one and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more;
  
  (b) that the conduct involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose.
  
  
  Apart from Terrorism or Espionage offences, murder. kidnapping. etc. the other "serious crimes", as defined by the priorities of the newly established Serious Organised Crime Agency i.e. firstly Drug trafficing in Class A drugs (cocaine, heroin, MDMA etc), then human trafficing (sex slaves, exploted illegal immigrant workers), and then large scale money laundering. Computer "hacking" offences which are not part of say, a wider blackmail or large scale fraud, are not considered to be a serious crime.
  
  Gary McKinnon is not accused of any of these types of criimes whatsoever.
  
  The Computer Misuse Act 1990 section 1 Unauthorised access to computer material penalty for unauthorised access is currently a maximum of six months in prison,
  
  The Computer Misuse Act 1990 section 3 Unauthorised modification of computer material penalty for is currently a maximum of 5 years in prison,
  
  First time offenders are extremley unlikely to be given the maximum sentence, and so neither of these offences fall under the definition of Serious Crime.
  
  These penalties are in the process of being increased via amendments in the Police and Justice Bill, currently being considered in the House of Lords, bit even if they are passed into law later on this year, these amendments have no relevance to Gary's case, based on alleged crimes back in 2001 / 2002.
  
  The key issue is to ensure that offences are dealt with in the place where they can be most effectively prosecuted. For example, where the main witnesses and the main evidence are in another state, and that state has a justice system comparable to our own in terms of fairness, it is more appropriate for the defendants to face justice there.
  Half the important evidence and witnesses are here in the UK, not in th USA e.g. the Internet Service Provider records and witnesses, the computer forensics analysis and witnesses, the UK National High Tech Crime Unit police officiers who interviewed Gary, which identify Gary rather than any number of other people around the world, who happened to also be investigating the US Military's unsecured networks at the same time.
  
  The US prosecutors have to prove that it was Gary McKinnon and nobody else, who also had access to the same systems, at the same time, who committed each of their allegations of "damage".
  
  
  
  
  
  Any decision on whether to launch a prosecution in this country is for the UK’s independent prosecuting authorities, such as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), as the Home Office has no prosecutorial role. The published guidance in the Code for Crown Prosecutors is followed when deciding whether to prosecute or continue a prosecution against an individual in the UK.
  
  
  Who actually believes that the Crown Prosecution Service did not closely consult with, and take advice andd instructions from, the Home Office, on an extradition case involving the US Military and Intelligence Agencies ?
  
  I hope the explanation above helps to make the situation clearer.
  Yours sincerely
  
  It will be interesting to see if the Home Office sticks to this boilerplate reply to other Representations on behalf of Gary McKinnon.
  
  
  Posted by fg on June 9, 2006 08:59 PM | Permalink
  
  TrackBack
  TrackBack URL for this entry:
  http://www.spy.org.uk/cgi-bin/mt32/mt-tb...
  
  Comments
  Referring to Kevin Mitnick, who is not well known here in the UK, and nobody ranted and raved in support of him in the UK. There people who felt he was being singled and treated harshly.
  There are some slight similarities, between the cases in that it neither case is anyone claiming that they are entirely innocent, but rather that the politicaly expedient "let's thrown the book at them" attitude by the the US Authorities, is unfair and injust, and, ultimately of no use whatsoever in deterring anybody else.
  
  The other point of similarity vbetween the cases is the vastly inflated allegations of financial damage or loss, which in Mitnick's case were disproved in court.
  
  However Kevin Mitnick never faced the prospect of being extradited to a foreign country, to be tried in a biased civilian court if lucky, and in a military tribunal if not.
  
  Calling people who stand up for the rule of law, national sovereignty and for natural justice "losers" is an unworthy comment.
  
  Who will come to your support when you face a similar injustice ?
  
  
  
  
  Posted by: fg | June 10, 2006 11:55 AM
  
  I Support Gary and his acts. UFO and Extraterrestrials weren't made to be kept top secret for the government only. We all deserve a chance to uncover the truth!
  
  Posted by: Jose | June 11, 2006 08:35 PM
  
  Have mercy of the curious who care 4-U.
  
  Posted by: paul shishis | June 13, 2006 01:24 AM
  
  I sent an email to the home office regarding this. I have now requested their reply a third time as it is indecipherable rubbish.
  
  i.e.
  
  begin 666 ResponseT24942 6.doc
  MT,\1X*&Q&N$`````````````````````/@`#`/[_"0`&```````````````"
  M````' ``````````$ ``)@````$```#^____`````!L```!D````________
  M____________________________________________________________
  M____________________________________________________________
  M____________________________________________________________
  M____________________________________________________________
  M____________________________________________________________
  M____________________________________________________________
  M____________________________________________________________
  M____________________________________________________________
  M____________________________________________________________
  M_______________________LI M'A@```X`8FIB:NY&[D8````````````````````````)!!8`)B0``(PL``",
  M+ ``'! ````````!``````````````````````````````#__P\`````````
  
  This is the third and last time I'll be asking for a proper reply.
  
  C
  
  Posted by: Calvin | June 14, 2006 11:14 AM
  
  Calvin, I have the same problem. I'm just replying to them now...
  *wonders if it's gmail*
  
  Posted by: Dan | June 14, 2006 05:58 PM
  
  They sent it as html this time. PRetty much word for word the same as the reply above.
  
  Posted by: Dan | June 15, 2006 01:09 PM
  
  @ Calvin
  the "begin .... end" stuff is just the "normal" way which 8 bit encoded binary attachments are sent through 7 bit text only email systems.
  
  This is usually invisible in most email readers, which just give you an attachment icon to click on, unless a header has been mangled or lost somewhere as seems to happen frequently with the Home Office email system.
  
  If you copy everything from the "begin..." to the "...end" in say Windows WordPad (which copes with larger files than Notepad) and save it as a text file with a .UUE extension, then a utility like WinZip will de-compress it for you back to the original .doc or .pdf document.
  
  Obviously check these with your anti-virus scanner software before opening them.
  
  If you are still having difficulty, then forward the email on to info@freegary.org.uk (if you do not mind us knowing your name and address) and we will try to de-compress it for you.
  
  Posted by: fg | June 15, 2006 01:41 PM
  
  I would appreciate knowing how I can reach Gary McKinnon?
  My article was in the recent Nexus Magazine that had Gary mentioned in it.
  I interviewed Senator Barry Goldwater the day we launched Neil Armstrong APOLLO 11 to the moon on July 16, 1969.
  I was a Space Shuttle ScO at KSC.
  Is Gary in jail?
  Please respond.
  clark0003@gmail.com
  title response "McKinnon"
  Thank you.
  
  Posted by: Clark C. McClelland, former ScO, STS Fleet | June 16, 2006 01:08 PM
  
  Our government has really let the country down with the 2003 Extradition Act.
  Why on earth should civilians of our country be sent to America without a shred of evidence when we cant do the same to US citizens? It is a disgrace! Also, I thought that 'hacking' a computer meant that the system security had to be exploited - Logging on as 'administrator' with a blank password is not hacking. It is logging on. Nothing more and nothing less. If you leave the keys in your car and the doors open, you only have yourself to blame if someone takes it- it is the same in this case. The real criminals are the 'IT' idiots working for US government agencies- imaging 5000 PCs with blank administrator passwords is inexcusable incompetence.
  
  Posted by: Guy Thomas | June 16, 2006 06:02 PM
  
  I have received the same reply from the home office - word for word - and it makes me mad i can tell you. The lazy, unresponsive faceless beaurocrats. Anyway, mustn't rant and rave! I know theres a lot of support for Gary amongst people who make an effort to follow whats going on in the world. I mean especially Tony Blair's extremely disapointing warmongering streak and the subsequent close bond he has had to maintain with the American Republican party. Gary is clearly facing injustice and the preceeding reason seems to be why the government is stonewalling protest with evasive standard issue letters. I also wrote to the CPS to ask why they did not choose to prosecute Gary following his arrest by the British computer crime squad. I asked about the role of the American authorities in making that decision not to prosecute in Britain. The reply went: 'The prosecutor who had contact of the extradition proceedings on behalf of the U.S.A is on annual leave untill 20th June.......Mr. Bland will provide a substantive reply to your queries on return from leave. Yours Sincerely, [signed on behalf of Robert Bland, Senior Specialist Prosecutor, Organised Crime Division]', 50 Ludgate Hill, London EC4 M7EX
  So that means even if the reply does contain more than the kind of platitudes from the home office, it will come too late to confront the home secretary with before the deadline for making representations. Hey Ho. Keep fighting.
  
  
  Posted by: Robin Smith | June 18, 2006 02:26 PM
  
  We have been forwarded another virtually identical reply from the Home Office sent to Matt.
  
  They correct the error in the date of "certification" to 17th November 2004, and have given it a slightly more formal tone in the paragraph mentioning 10th May, but essentially the reply (from the same Civil Servant as above) is the same:
  
  Dear Mr. [name suppressed],
  Thank you for your e-mail of 14/06/06 06:00:52 addressed to the Home Secretary, concerning a request by the USA for the extradition of Gary McKinnon who stands accused of offences connected to computer ‘hacking’.
  
  The UK has important international obligations in the area of extradition. It takes those obligations seriously. Where, as here, a request for extradition is made, those obligations become engaged and make it our duty to assist within of course, what the law permits.
  
  The US request for Mr McKinnon was found to be valid (within the meaning of the 2003 Extradition Act). Accordingly on 17 November 2004, the Secretary of State certified it. The effect of certifying an extradition request in this way is to place matters before the courts. On 10 May the court found that there was a case to answer and that the statutory barriers to surrender did not avail Mr McKinnon. The District Judge therefore sent the case to the Secretary of State for a decision as to surrender. At this point, Mr McKinnon has a statutory opportunity up to 21 June to make representations (albeit on limited grounds) against surrender.
  
  If the Secretary of State orders surrender, Mr McKinnon will be able to challenge the decision of the District Judge and/or the Secretary of State by appealing to the High Court. In this way, we hope you will at least feel assured that the procedure ensures all relevant matters are not only considered fairly and properly but are susceptible to challenge on appeal.
  
  Both the old and the current legislation permit extradition for conduct committed outside the requesting state, as with the case of Gary McKinnon. This is a vital provision to combat the increasingly global nature of serious crime.
  
  The key issue is to ensure that offences are dealt with in the place where they can be most effectively prosecuted. For example, where the main witnesses and the main evidence are in another state, and that state has a justice system comparable to our own in terms of fairness, it is more appropriate for the defendants to face justice there.
  
  Any decision on whether to launch a prosecution in this country is for the UK’s independent prosecuting authorities, such as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), as the Home Office has no prosecutorial role.
  
  I hope the explanation above helps to make the situation clearer.
  
  Yours sincerely
  
  [civil servant's name]
  
  Posted by: fg | June 20, 2006 12:15 PM
  
  We have had another Reply from the the same Civil Servant at the Home Office, forwarded to us, identical to the one above, but for the individual name and address and email time references.
  
  It may appear ro be a bit dishearening just to get a standard boilerplate reply, to personally written emails or letters , but at least there is an Official Correspondence File growing at the Home Office, which cannot claim that they are unaware of the public concerns over this case.
  
  Hopefully the people who have taken the trouble to individually contact the Home Secretary on Gary's behalf will have more effect than simply signing and presenting a single petition.
  
  
  Posted by: fg | June 20, 2006 02:39 PM
  
  Same response from the home office to me.
  
  Interesting that hacking is in quotes as 'hacking'. Thats because he actually logged on - he never 'hacked' anything. Logging on is not hacking. Also, I suggest that Gary changes his name to "Andy D Ministrator" - that way, his log on will be retrospectively legal. Logging on with your own name and password is not a crime. Sounds crazy? Not as crazy as the fact that the USA can retrospectively enforce new laws after a 'crime' is committed!
  
  Posted by: gthomas | June 20, 2006 10:47 PM
  
  
  Post a comment
  Name:
  
  Email Address:
  
  URL:
  
  Remember personal info?
  
  Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
  Jay, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• There is an interesting video interview with Gary by Kerry Cassidy.
  on this website.
  
  http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_gar...
  
  Lucille
  Lucille, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• The news I've posted re-the one sided Extradition Act "between" America and the UK. The treaty is signed only by the UK and not signed by the US.
  
  This will affect Gary McKinnon but unfortunately most of the MP's and the newspaoers concentrate only on well off Bankers and Businessmen.
  
  Gary did not make money. did not harm anyone and did not inflict damage on the computer systems. Any damage done was caused by the US shutting down their own systems because they themselves had not protected them properly.
  
  
  
  It's about time some of the newspapers and politicians started speaking up for the likes of Gary but perhaps because he does not come from a wealthy family, the MP's and newspapers have no interest.
  
  
  
  I have every sympathy with anyone who has not committed a violent crime being extradited to America but our Politicians and our media should also champion the rights of Cyber Trespassers like Gary, who was only looking for information and truth.
  
  
  
  Free Gary!!!
  
  Jay
  
  
  
  Bankers refused leave to appeal over Enron
  
  
  
  LONDON (Reuters) - Three former NatWest bankers on Wednesday lost the latest round in their fight to avoid extradition to the United States over fraud charges linked to collapsed energy firm Enron.
  
  The House of Lords turned down the bankers' appeal for permission to challenge earlier court rulings allowing them to be extradited to face trial in Houston, Texas, the House of Lords website said.
  
  The three bankers -- David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby -- have argued that if they are prosecuted it should be in Britain.
  
  Mark Spragg, their solicitor said: "Obviously we are surprised and disappointed by the decision of the Lords which seems completely out of context given the importance of the matter we were asking them to deliberate on.
  
  "It seems that now there are no effective safeguards to prevent people being extradited to America.
  
  They have, however, been given seven days before extradition in which to approach the European Court of Human Rights.
  
  British business leaders and human rights campaigners have accused the U.S. government of using a new extradition treaty, intended as a tool against terrorism, to target white-collar crime.
  
  Under the treaty, the United States is able to demand a Briton's extradition without having to show there is a case to answer based on available evidence, although Britain has to prove its case in a U.S. court to extradite U.S. citizens to the United Kingdom.
  
  The three bankers who worked for NatWest Bank, now part of Royal Bank of Scotland, are alleged to have conspired with Enron executives, including Enron's former finance director Andrew Fastow, over the sale of a stake in an Enron entity in 2000 for less than it was worth, which made them $7.3 million.
  
  They deny the allegations.
  
  U.S. prosecutors want to try them in Houston, the home of Enron, where they face allegations of wire fraud.
  
  The three had sought leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The House of Lords website gave no details of the reasons why the law lords rejected their application.
  
  Spragg said if the ECHR grants a stay, the Home Office has agreed to abide by that pending a full hearing by the European Court .
  
  An application by retired businessman Ian Norris, former chief executive of engineering company Morgan Crucible, to challenge his extradition to the U.S. on charges of price-fixing has also been refused by the law lords.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Hijackers can stay but the bankers will have to go
  
  By Jeff Randall
  
  12 May 2006
  
  If you're having a bad day - and need a bit of perspective – put yourself in the shoes of the so-called NatWest Three. These are the British bankers, accused of a minor role in the Enron scandal, who are on course to be extradited to Texas, where they face two years in jail awaiting trial.
  
  If found guilty, they could be incarcerated for up to 25 years. In the US, convicts who get more than six years are automatically sent to maximum security prisons, such as Sing Sing - a sinister twist on facing the music.
  
  The trio, David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Derby, are alleged to have diddled NatWest out of £4.5m via some underhand trading of the bank's stake in an Enron subsidiary. They strongly deny any wrongdoing and are fighting an extradition order made by a district judge, which was upheld by The Big Buffoon, Charles Clarke, when he was Home Secretary.
  
  Given that Clarke's department allowed (albeit unwittingly) more than 1,000 convicted foreign criminals, including murderers and rapists, to be released into British society, instead of being deported, you can see why the NatWest Three are feeling peeved.
  
  But wait, it gets worse; much worse. For while the release of foreign criminals was a Home Office error, there is no mistaking the protection that Britain's legal system is giving to some truly ghastly people who shouldn't be here.
  
  For instance, we've failed to get rid of Abu Qatada, a Muslim cleric with suspected links to al-Qa'eda. His deportation to Jordan, where he has been convicted of terrorism offences, is being opposed by lawyers on the grounds that this delicate flower may have his petals ruffled in Amman.
  
  British taxpayers are not only protecting Qatada's "human rights" but also funding them.
  
  Then there's the barely believable case of the nine Afghan hijackers, who this week were told by a High Court judge that they could continue to live in Britain (on benefits, naturally) because sending them back to Afghanistan would be "unsafe".
  
  Sickest of all is the story of Mustaf Jama, a Somalian refugee, who is wanted in connection with the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky. He escaped deportation just months before the policewoman was shot, despite being a persistent offender who had served several terms in prison.
  
  The Home Office said Jama avoided repatriation because Somalia was "dangerous". Really? So does that mean anyone from an African hell-hole who arrives in Britain, irrespective of circumstances, can never be returned? I guess it does.
  
  No such protection, however, for three British citizens, born and bred in the United Kingdom, accused of small-time swindling, even though neither their former employer, NatWest, nor the Serious Fraud Office in London is pursuing legal action against them.
  
  I've never visited Sing Sing - and I don't intend to - but my suspicion is that it's filled with inmates who make Mike Tyson seem like Pansy Potter. Pretty "dangerous", wouldn't you say? So why do the NatWest Three face the possibility of being banged up there, or some place like it?
  
  Let's be clear, the human rights industry in this country is no longer protecting us, it's a threat to our safety, like a guard-dog that's savaging its master.
  
  The acid of political correctness has burnt a hole in our administration's collective brain; it's unable to think straight. As a result, the British Parliament has lost control of the most important rules and regulations by which the vast majority of its citizens wish to be governed.
  
  A combination of warped do-gooders, barmy domestic judges and insidious European institutions are destroying the fabric of our society. Even the prime minister - whose lawyer wife is a member of the human rights mafia - called the court's decision to block the deportation of the Afghans "an abuse of common sense".
  
  Yet it was on Tony Blair's watch that Britain was panicked into signing a new extradition treaty with the US, after the 9/11 atrocities, in order to clamp down on terrorists. It was an agreement that was meant to be used against bombers, not bankers.
  
  Instead, it has cleared the way for US prosecutors to remove British citizens, including those accused of white-collar offences, even though the UK has no reciprocal rights over Americans.
  
  I have no idea if the NatWest Three are guilty. Perhaps they are. But not even their enemies would describe them as a threat to British security.
  
  By contrast, many foreign nationals, who have taken refuge here amidst the thick fog of constitutional confusion, most definitely are. We've given up our human rights for theirs. Fairness has been replaced by madness.
  
  Tories fail to weaken us extradition powers
  
  10 May 2006
  
  By Matt Chorley and Trevor Mason, PA Political Staff
  
  Opposition parties tonight failed in a bid strip the United States of its power to extradite British citizens without producing evidence.
  
  The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats hoped the move would force the US Senate to ratify a controversial treaty which the UK has already signed up to.
  
  Since the UK backed the treaty the United States has not been required to provide 'prima facie'' evidence of wrongdoing to extradite a UK citizen.
  
  But the US Senate's failure to ratify it means Britain must still provide the US with evidence of 'probable cause'' if it wishes to extradite someone from America.
  
  Today shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve said the arrangement was 'on-sided'' and branded the UK decision to sign the treaty a 'an error of judgment of monumental kind''.
  
  And Liberal Democrats labelled it 'shameful''.
  
  Tories moved to omit the USA from the list of designated territories in category 2 of the 2003 Extradition Act, removing the 'current privileged status which it has of securing extradition without producing evidence''.
  
  They also hoped to prevent any such redesignation taking place until the UK/US extradition treaty has been ratified on both sides of the Atlantic.
  
  But the move was defeated by 224 votes to 293, majority 69.
  
  'It's not surprising this state of affairs has occurred because why should the United States be bothered?''
  
  He warned someone sending an email that passed through a US-based server could be prosecuted or extradited to face trial for something that was an offence in a single US state, but not in the UK.
  
  Speaking ahead of the vote, he added: 'In the case of the United States, if this House actually exercises a bit of its will and a bit of common-sense and says to the Government which seems to be incapable of carrying out sensible diplomatic negotiations, that you are not going to get what you want unless you withhold what you are offering at the same time.
  
  'The Government's decision to gratuitously provide the United States with all it was seeking in the Treaty is an error of judgment of monumental kind.''
  
  He said the new clause would 'ensure that the United States is politely reminded that reciprocity is the absolute basis of international relations''.
  
  For the Liberal Democrats, David Heath said the current situation was 'shameful'', which had led to an 'asymmetric arrangement that's of no benefit for the Government to be in''.
  
  'I find it quite astonishing that this treaty, which we have signed with what is supposed to be our closest allies, is apparently of so little import in the legislation of the United States.''
  
  He said the US Congress had ratified extradition treaties with Lithuania, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Peru.
  
  'Apparently with the United Kingdom it cannot find the opportunity to give proper consideration to reciprocal arrangements.''
  
  He warned: 'We see prospective extraditions for commercial crime against people who are operating in British companies that have connections with American companies, whose activities are solely based in this country, who have never been to the great state of Delaware or the great state of Idaho or wherever an American parent company may be based, but are extraditable for matters that are not offences in this country, which were not carried out in the US but can be extradited and held in custody before trial in a state in which they have never previously set foot.''
  
  Tory former Home Secretary Michael Howard said it was 'difficult to imagine a more one-sided state of arrangements in existence. The US has not honoured it's side of the deal.''
  
  Mr Howard warned that extradition arrangements needed to be carefully scrutinised if the liberties of British citizens were not to be jeopardised.
  
  Denying that he was 'anti-American,'' he said the current arrangements were 'unbalanced''.
  
  'If they are allowed to continue they are likely to do significant damage to the relationship (between Britain and the US).''
  
  Tory former minister John Maples said the situation had arisen because the US did not 'take this Government seriously'' due to their 'lousy'' negotiating skills.
  
  'British citizens are being put at risk of serious injustice,'' he warned. 'I hope the Government will look at this again and find some way out of the problem.''
  
  Junior home office minister Joan Ryan, making her debut at the despatch box, said she was surprised by the content and tone of the Tories' remarks and dismissed their fears as 'misplaced''.
  
  She said the Opposition had revealed a 'deep distrust of one of our longest and most trusted extradition partners,'' while the 2003 Extradition Act had ensured a 'better and faster approach'' to the process.
  
  Rejecting the Tories' charges, she said: 'There is a deep misunderstanding about this. We have reciprocity because of the Extradition Act.''
  
  
  
  
  
  Extradition Howard claims Government stance threatens civil rights FAIR TRIALS FOR BUSINESS
  
  By Russell Hotten
  
  11 May 2006
  
  The Daily Telegraph
  
  MICHAEL Howard, the former leader of the Conservative Party, has warned that the Government was putting British citizens' liberties at risk by continuing to support the current extradition arrangements with the United States.
  
  Speaking during a Commons debate on attempts to amend the 2004 Extradition Act, Mr Howard said the Government risked serious damage to relations with the US.
  
  The treaty sparked a storm over powers American prosecutors have to seek the removal of British citizens. The UK ratified the treaty in 2003: the US still has not done so.
  
  The amendments attempt to limit the extradition powers of the US until it ratifies the treaty, and increase the power of British courts to intervene. Mr Howard said the amendments were not anti-American: "I think the Government should take great care to ensure our liberties are protected,'' he said. "If the situation is allowed to continue they will do significant damage to the relationship with America.''
  
  The imbalance in extradition powers has been highlighted by the cases of the NatWest Three bankers and Ian Norris, the retired chief executive of Morgan Crucible, all wanted in the US.
  
  The Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors have joined leading lawyers, civil rights groups and The Daily Telegraph in raising concern.
  
  During yesterday's debate, Conservative MP John Maples said the Government had been "panicked'' into signing the treaty after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. "In the process we have thrown out our common law protections,'' he said.
  
  Mr Maples said it should come as no surprise that the US authorities have resisted signing the treaty. "No one who has watched their refusal to extradite alleged IRA terrorists will be surprised,'' he said.
  
  However, Home Office minister Joan Ryan insisted there was no imbalance. "The treaty provides a better, faster approach to extradition,'' she said. Although the proposed amendments were expected to be defeated last night, opposition parties will take their fight to the House of Lords.
  
  To register your support, email city. feedback@telegraph.co.uk or write to Fair Trials For Business campaign, City Office, The Daily Telegraph, 1 Canada Square, London E14 5DT. Your comments may be published.
  
  
  
  
  
  Tories' anti-treaty proposals boosted by Scottish vote
  
  By Russell Hotten
  
  10 May 2006
  
  The Daily Telegraph
  
  OPPONENTS of the UK's one-way extradition treaty with the US will step up pressure for change today, spurred on by news that members of Scotland's parliament have voted unanimously to object to the current arrangements.
  
  At Westminster, the Conservative Party will table proposed amendments to the 2004 Extradition Act. The legislation sparked a wave of criticism from business leaders and civil rights groups because of the powers it gives the US to extradite UK citizens.
  
  The Tories' move follows a demand by MSPs that Scotland's justice minister voice the Edinburgh parliament's concerns with the Home Office. While Holyrood has no powers to change the Act, the vote is a huge symbolic gesture. Although the UK ratified the treaty in 2003, the US has not and is unlikely to do so soon because of opposition in Washington. The UK must still show strong evidence if it wants to extradite a US person.
  
  This imbalance was highlighted by the cases of the so-called NatWest Three bankers and of Ian Norris, the retired chief executive of Morgan Crucible. The Tories will propose amendments restricting the US's powers until it ratifies the treaty and of giving judges greater rights to refuse extradition requests.
  
  In the case of the NatWest Three, no UK authority has taken any action against the men. The proposed amendments say that, in the interests of justice, the courts should be allowed to take into account when deciding an extradition case if the UK authorities have decided against prosecution. To register your support, email city.feedback@telegraph.co.uk or write to Fair Trials For Business campaign, City Office, The Daily Telegraph, 1 Canada Square, London, E14 5DT. Your comments may be published.
  
  
  
  A law aimed at making it easier for the US to extradite terrorists or drug dealers has had serious unintended consequences. Instead of fast-tracking bombers to justice, US prosecutors are using the 2003 Extradition Act to target UK businessmen accused of white collar crimes.
  
  Good, you might say, let's hope they get what they deserve. We would say the same. Except that the 2003 Act risks creating grave injustices and needs to be amended.
  
  Under the Act, the US can seek extradition without giving any prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, only an outline case. And guess what? The UK enjoys no such rights because the US has not signed its part of the treaty. Britain must still provide a sack load of evidence to extradite US white collar suspects. This lack of reciprocity is unacceptable. Make no mistake, once hauled off to the US, people in business, innocent until proven guilty, will face potentially years in a high-security jail while a case is prepared against them and will have woeful access to legal representation. The most high-profile cases are those of the Natwest Three and Ian Norris, former chief executive of Morgan Crucible. The three Natwest bankers are ensnared in this net because of a deal they did involving Enron, the collapsed US energy company. Yet neither Natwest nor its new owner, Royal Bank of Scotland, saw fit to take action themselves. And the Serious Fraud Office made no attempt to prosecute.
  
  So why does the US want to extradite three men whose alleged crime seems a largely UK-based affair? Because prosecutors say the bankers once went to Houston to make a presentation to Enron executives explaining how the alleged fraud might work. In Mr Norris's case it cannot be right to allow a retired businessman with prostate cancer to undergo all this without the US producing concrete evidence at the very least. His alleged crime, price fixing, was not even an offence in the UK when it was said to have been committed.
  
  The UK authorities should investigate and, if necessary, prosecute the Natwest Three and Mr Norris here, not wash their hands of responsibility so that they can be tried 4,000 miles away.
  
  This issue is about the British Government ceding the rights of UK citizens, and so imposing unnecessary risk on executives doing business in the US.
  
  So what can be done? The courts seem reluctant to intervene because, essentially, it is a political matter. The Government has legally ratified the changes, so it is not the place of the courts to say otherwise.
  
  Instead, it is for Parliament to change the law, and that process began yesterday when the Police and Justice Bill received its second reading in the Commons. Attached to the Bill are some inconsequential amendments to the Extradition Act.
  
  If nothing else, the Police Bill is an opportunity to have the full and frank debate on the Extradition Act that Parliament was denied in 2003. But we must go further. The Act itself must be changed.
  
  If business, opposition politicians, and civil rights groups join forces with The Daily Telegraph we can wield enough power to ensure that more substantial amendments are included in the Police Bill, ones that will correct the mistakes of the 2003 Extradition Act.
  
  As a first step, under the existing regime, we want the Government only to agree extradition for individuals charged with terrorist activity. Second, the Government should incorporate Article 7 of the European Convention on Extradition, which will give the Home Secretary powers to refuse extradition if the crime can be deemed to have been committed in part in the UK.
  
  Third, since the US has not ratified the Treaty, the old Extradition Act should be reinstated. In other words, the US should be removed from the list of designated states that are permitted to dispense with prima facie evidence.
  
  The number of white collar extraditions in the pipeline is rising. And once some of America's overzealous prosecutors realise how easy it is to remove UK citizens, that list will grow ever longer. This Government has given US justice officials a long extra-territorial reach and there is no reason why they will not use it. We are not campaigning on some bleeding heart cause. We are campaigning on the perfectly reasonable requirement for US prosecutors to have to make a case before hauling people off and the recognition of the fundamental right of British citizens, including people involved in British business, to face trial here for alleged crimes committed within these shores.
  
  Please write to the newspapers and to politicians, the house of Lords etc asking them to support Gary.
  
  Any help will be much appreciated.
  
  Lucy
  Lucille, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Pray for John Reid.
  
  Lord please give John Reid the help and support he will need to fight the forces of evil in our inner cities.The drug barons,the killers,the rapists,the paedophiles and the general filth that now rule some of this great country of ours have to be confronted with a powerful sword.That sword has been handed by Tony Blair to a man of strong character,a man with the strength to give our inner cities back to our people.You John Reid will not allow whinging and whining newspapers to hold you back.The people who are now held hostage in their own homes for fear of muggers rapists and drug related criminals will not forgive you if you hesitate.You have us all behind you in your mission.We will help you and the extra police to win this battle.When this battle has been won,for it must be won,we will be able to enjoy this great country of ours without fear for our elderly and our vulnerable children.However there is one thing you must always remember,we are all innocent until proven guilty and we look to you. our leaders, to protect us.You know everything about Gary McKinnons case,Compare him to our real criminals and we trust you to make the right decisions.
  EDMUND, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• For info, Radio 4's Law in Action programme today (27/6/06) had an item on UK/US extradition, and the apparent unfairness in the current system.
  
  Gary McKinnon is mentioned on the website (link below) but I didn't actually hear his name during the programme.
  
  Listen to the programme, and send your responses to lawinaction@bbc.co.uk
  
  Read about the item here:
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/la...
  Listen to the programme here:
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_ao...
  Tim Morley, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• There is a protest taking place against the one sided extradition treaty of British subjects to America.
  
  Please come along and support this demonstration which has been organised by the Telegraph.
  If possible bring Free Gary Placards or wear Free Gary T Shirts.
  Or bring placards in favour of all who are being extradited.
  It leaves at 5pm from The Institute of Directors in Pall Mall and marches on to St James'Park and then marches on to the Home Office in Marsham St London where letters can be passed to the Home Secretary.
  
  All support is very greatly appreciated.
  
  Lucille
  Lucille, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Just to let you know that there is a protest taking place
  against the one sided extradition treaty of British subjects to America.
  
  To anyone in London who can: Please come along and support this
  demonstration which has been organised by the Telegraph.
  If possible bring Free Gary Placards or wear Free Gary T Shirts.
  Or bring placards in favour of all who are being extradited.
  
  The March leaves on Thursday 28th June at 5pm from The Institute of
  Directors in Pall Mall in London and marches on to St James' Park and then
  to the Home Office in Marsham St London where letters can be passed to the
  Home Secretary.
  
  
  If you know of any other websites this can be posted on, I'd be grateful if
  you could pass on the info. to anyone and everyone you can.
  
  All support is very greatly appreciated.
  
  Gary's mum
  Janis, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• I have been asked to post some additional information re- the protest against the one sided extradition treaty which takes place tomorrow Thursday 29th June at 5pm.
  
  It will leave from the Institute of Directors in Pall Mall and march on to St James' Park and then march onto the Home Office in Marsham St. London where letters can be passed to the Home Secretary.
  
  Liberty is backing this protest.
  
  Apparently everyone is expected to dress in business dress but as in the year 2006, everyone's idea of business dress varies considerably, this is a sweeping statement.
  
  IMPORTANT:
  
  Once the demonstration crosses
  Saint James's Park it enters the Designated Area around Parliament
  Square and section 132 of the Serious Organised crime and Police
  Act 2005 comes into play.
  
  Remember that the shortest route from St Jams's Park to Marsham
  Street actually passes right outside New Scotland Yard Met Police
  HQ.
  Any breach of even the newly imposed Conditions is also a criminal
  offence.
  
  This is no longer as free a country as it was only a few years
  ago.
  
  The march / demo,protesting against the one sided extradition treaty, apparently having been automatically granted permission, is
  also automatically subjected to arbitrary Conditions.
  These conditions can be added to or changed at a moment's notice by the
  senior police officer on the spot, who will definately be watching.
  
  There have been dozens of people arrested and convicted for holding
  peaceful , mostly anti=iIraq war demonstrations without prior
  written authorisation.
  It is not that the Metropolitan Police are unsympathetic, they literally have no leeway to interpret this
  badly written legislation in any other way than the
  government has decreed.
  
  One lady has even been convicted for holding a placard which said
  "I am not a Serious Organised Criminal". The dignified and entirely
  pacifist two person peace protest ceremony involving the reading
  out the names of the British soldiers kkilled in Iraq, by the
  Cenotaph in Whitehall last October resulted in 40 police officers
  arresting 2 people.
  
  Permission has apparently been applied for properly, and
  if it has been made clear that the demonstration is disntinguishable from
  any others that might be going on at the same time (a hugely
  difficult problem for the Police to manage in practice).
  With no banners or plackards allowed, (which we have just been told is the case) then anyone else who turns up with banners or placards may be deemed not to be part of the demonstration and may very well
  be arrested.
  
  Even the "dressed in business dress, anti extradition demo" could have arrbitrary Conditions
  slapped on it at a moments notice.
  
  e.g. most of the demonstrators
  could be held back from approaching the Home Office building itself
  (not neccessarilly for security reasons, but possibly to hide the number of supporters
  from the waiting media pack) and only a couple of people let
  inside to deliver the letter.
  
  Even if you turn up as a one person demonstration, that is also
  covered by this draconian law.
  
  See http://ParliamentProtest.org.uk
  
  Gary (McKinnon) and his supporters and supporters of others facing extradition, have apparently just been informed by one of the events organisers, that all who participate in the demo protesting the one sided extradition treaty, should be dressed as per the Conditions; which apparently means being in "business" dress.
  
  That does not preclude some interviews with the media who
  will be covering the story, which is the whole point of the thing
  anyway, since the hope is to influence the Home Secretary.
  
  Anyone who does attend should be aware of the very real risk of
  arrest, (once crossing the designated area) even if they are wearing a suit.
  Once the demonstration crosses Saint James's Park it enters the
  Designated Area around Parliament
  Square and section 132 of the Serious Organised crime and Police
  Act 2005 comes into play.
  
  Anyone who has any concerns about the possibility of arrest is free not to cross or enter the designated area
  
  It seems this is no longer a free country as it was only a few years
  ago,
  The Designated Area around Parliament Square is seen by many as an abuse of power,
  and a curtailment of our right of free assembly and free speech
  etc.
  It attracts its own "freedom to protest" demonstrations, but the
  court cases have not yet reached any consideration of the Human
  Rights issues - Magistrates Coourts do not take Human Rights issues
  into consideration, only the higher courts can and do.
  
  However, the media coverage of a small demonstration can be almost
  as much as for a large one, so it is in everyone's interests that this one
  does not get cancelled, and that journalists and broadcasters do
  cover it, and perhaps some of the issues will get some publicity
  and put pressure on the NuLabour spin doctors, who will influence
  the Home Secretary John Reid.
  
  Kindest Regards
  Lucille
  Lucille, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Just found this novel campaign on the net, to Free Gary .
  
  Pity they used the very old distorted photo that looks nohing like Gary but great idea nevertheless. Jay
  
  Weekly Round-Up: 30.06.06
  The hacker who fell to earth...
  
  By silicon.com
  
  Published: Friday 30 June 2006
  
  Imagine the Round-Up's surprise when during a moment of abject boredom this week (or Ukraine v Switzerland, to give it its proper name) some channel hopping on the television uncovered a rather magnificent gem of information right where you would least expect to find it.
  
  The Round-Up didn't even know there was a 'Community Channel' on cable but as the channel hopping flashed onto it the familiar face of a long-haired man singing his heart out on screen stopped the Round-Up in its tracks.
  
  It was one of those 'I know that face' moments which is immediately followed with 'but from where?'.
  
  Fortunately the face in question was pretty distinctive and it wasn't long before the Round-Up placed it... Though the setting was a little unusual. Singing away with a big grin and long, long flowing hair, it was unmistakably Gary McKinnon, the UK man who hacked into NASA's computers, discovered incontrovertible evidence of alien intelligence (but was 'too stoned' to remember what it was, m'Lud) and now faces extradition to the US for his troubles.
  
  In all the coverage of McKinnon's case the Round-Up had never heard any mention of his past as a singer/songwriter and actor, though his part in a dubious low-budget movie, called 'Lunar Girl', from 2001 appears to be his only credit.
  
  (You can check out McKinnon's two songs from the film here, and while downloading files created by a self-confessed hacker may not seem wise, we're pretty sure they're safe.)
  
  The Round-Up will spare the blushes of the silicon.com team member who said 'Who's that? It's quite good' while we were playing these tracks, though we concede they are admittedly a lot better than we feared they might be – with a slight Bowie factor, dare we say.
  
  A number of the lyrics stood out, not least of all "I stand, lonely and without a place to stay", which the Round-Up has a feeling may be a problem the US government will gladly address with some state-sponsored accommodation in the near future.
  
  Likewise, "You don't know what you're looking for but it ain't here, so say goodbye", from his song 'Only a Fool' might neatly sum up McKinnon's search for ET (though we're willing to admit we're wrong when the invasion fleet arrives).
  
  However, it's not all doom and gloom. McKinnon also sings "I could be the hand that breaks the chains and sets you free..." Which sounds like it could be a useful skill to have under the circumstances.
  
  In fact only one lyric really seemed out of place. "I can be the sunny smile that brightens up your day."
  
  That would be this sunny smile, we presume:
  
  That'll brighten up any day.
  
  However, the Round-Up hatched a plan at this stage which it is surprised McKinnon's defence and growing band of supporters haven't hit upon yet (possibly because this musical string to McKinnon's bow seems to be something of a secret).
  
  Get the songs on iTunes, start a viral marketing campaign on the internet and get Gary McKinnon to number one – a few thousand downloads alone will see him hit the charts.
  
  Why? Well how many celebrities have 'beaten the rap' in the US on the back of having a music or movie career... think about it.
  
  http://comment.silicon.com/weeklyroundup...
  
  Download Gary's songs here http://www.londontv.net/LG_gary.htm
  Jay, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• The Enron/Nat West 3 Bankers deemed to be extradited to the US in mid July, were "fortunate" to get permission to protest in the Westminster no protest zone.
  
  Prominent businessmen and Tony blair are apparently backing them and Tony Blair has enquired about how it can be arranged for the Enron/Nat West 3 to be brought back to the UK on bail until their trial in the US comes up in a few years time.
  
  Some of Britain's businessmen urged the Home Secretary to stop the "manifestly unfair" extradition of three former bankers to face Enron-related fraud charges in the United States. Billionaire retail tycoon Philip Green, Chris Gent, former head of Vodafone and Martin Broughton, chairman of British Airways were among the 39 signatories to the letter published in the Daily Telegraph.
  
  No such support from Tony Blair or prominent business men for former I.T worker Gary McKinnon, who if extradited faces seventy years in a US prison.
  One rule for the rich and another for lesser mortals it seems.
  
  Gary is also a musician and although he admits trespassing into US computers that had no passwords and no firewalls. Gary denies causing any damage.
  The US have to claim damage because without it they could not extradite Gary.
  Incidentally you can download Gary's songs free from this link. http://www.londontv.net/LG_gary.htm
  
  No such support from Tony Blair or the business community for Babar Ahmad either. Another former I.T worker, who was not even allowed bail and has been held in prison in the UK for about two years awaiting probable extradition to the US.
  
  Being Muslim, what chance does anyone think Babar Ahmad will really have of getting a fair trial once extradited?
  
  Babar's family have arranged a protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice on the 11th July which is the same day his final appeal is being heard. Details below.
  
  BABAR’S LAST CHANCE
  
  THE HIGH COURT DEMO
  
  Date: TUESDAY 11TH JULY 2006
  
  Time: 12:15 pm- 2pm
  
  Place:
  Royal Courts of Justice - the High Court,
  Strand,
  London WC2A 2LL
  
  Nearest Tube Stations: Temple, Chancery Lane, Charing Cross, Holborn
  
  Babar Ahmad’s appeal against extradition to the United States will begin on Tuesday 11th July 2006.
  
  If he loses this appeal he could be on the plane to America to face gross Human Rights abuses within WEEKS
  
  Join the demo to tell the Government and the world that enough is enough. British citizens will no longer tolerate second-class treatment.
  
  Bring out the evidence in Britain and give Babar a fair trial here, or release him immediately
  
  Confirmed Speakers so far:
  Moazzam Begg (Ex-Guantanamo detainee)
  Yvonne Ridley (Islam Channel presenter of Agenda programme)
  Asim Qureshi (CagePrisoners.com)
  
  Book a day or an afternoon off or even an extended lunch break to attend.
  
  THIS COULD BE OUR LAST CHANCE TO STOP HIS EXTRADITION
  
  NO TO DETENTION WITHOUT CHARGE
  NO TO UK-US EXTRADITION TREATY 2003
  For further information please email: info@freebabarahmad.com or telephone 07963537779
  
  www.freebabarahmad.com
  Lucille, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Hi,
  Just to update everyone on the anti fast track extradition protest.
  
  Most of Gary's supporters decided not to attend the march in the end, as at the last minute it was made clear to Gary's supporters by a lady named Melanie Riley, that Gary and his supporters were not welcome on this march as it was for business people only.
  For some reason it apparently was felt by Miss Riley that Gary and his many computer/I.T and UFO supporters, might "hi-jack" the protest and discredit the march.
  
  Miss Riley runs a PR firm and represents the Nat West 3 who are facing extradition in July 2006.
  
  It was made clear that this protest was essentially a PR excercise to help to encourage the Law Lords to exclude business men from the one sided extradition laws.
  
  It seems that neither Gary's supporters, (nor Babar Ahmad's supporters) were welcome on this march, despite this being a protest against the one sided extradition treaty which they are all facing.
  
  On being forwarded a copy of Miss Riley's emails, neither myself or our friends joined the march in the end as it was clear that Gary McKinnon's supporters were not welcome.
  However Gary did dress in a suit and joined the march in full support of the Enron/Nat West 3.
  
  It seems only 39 businessmen signed the letter that was handed into the Home Office.
  However the Enron/Nat West 3 seem fortunate to have Tony Blair on their side, so they should be OK.
  
  Apart from the fact that many of the business men arrived in taxis and limos to join the "protest"
  It was apparently more like a walk home from work, rather than a "march" but was described by the Telegraph as dignified.
  
  Had others been allowed to wear T shirts in the stifling heat and been made welcome to attend the protest; I have no doubt that many hundreds of Gary McKinnon's (and Babar Ahmad's supporters) would have been there but this was not wanted.
  
  I wonder if Mr Watkin (The main organiser), who is apparently a .com millionaire and is now chairman of DI oils, forgets where his money came from???
  
  Gary McKinnon was an I.T worker, as are many of his supporters.
  
  Babar Ahmad was an I.T worker.
  Is I.T not business?
  
  We hope that Gary McKinnon, David Bermingham/the Nat West 3 and Babar Ahmad, are allowed to be tried in their own country which is a Human Right.
  We in the UK should not be treated as second class citizens in the world. We should have the same legal rights as the American's have, to prevent our citizens from being unfairly extradited for crimes which in Gary's case, would most likely carry a community service sentence in the UK.
  
  Lucille
  
  http://www.spy.org.uk/freegary/
  Lucille, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Lib Dem MP Menzies Campbell was, as of last year, concerned about this sham of a treaty.
  
  Point of law - how come the American authorities are already using this treaty to extradite people when we are told that the US Senate has not ratified this treaty and it therefore has not come into effect?
  
  "PM refuses to act over extradition of NatWest Three"
  http://business.timesonline.co.uk/articl...
  
  
  Is Ken Lay's death related to this?
  "Enron founder Ken Lay dies of heart attack"
  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,...
  Richard Martin, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• I saw Menzies Campbell on BBC News 24 yesterday and although he spoke out against the unfair extradition act, it was purely on bahalf of the Enron/Nat West 3.
  
  When the presenter Jon Sopel, asked why no fuss was being kicked up about the proposed extradition of (Gary) who was accused of hacking into the Pentagon, Mr Campbell continued to talk about the Enron/Nat West 3.
  
  Jon Sopel again asked Menzies Campbell why no one was making a fuss about the proposed extradition of the alleged computer hacker; Mr Campbell said that the Nat West 3 Bankers had always protested their innocence.
  
  Well Gary has always denied causing any damage and without proof of damage their can be no extradition under the old extradition law.
  
  I've now heard that Tony Blair is trying to arrange for the Enron/ Nat West 3 to be bailed by America and to be allowed to stay in the UK for the next year or two, until their trial in the US comes up.
  What is this favouritism of Bankers all about?
  
  I have absolutely no objections to the Enron/Nat West 3 staying in the UK, were the same considerations being given to Gary....In fact I'd welcome it.
  
  It seems as always, there is one rule for the rich and one rule for the less well off and the less privileged.
  
  and poor Babar Ahmad, who unlike the others, has been imprisoned for about two years in the UK whilst awaiting extradition. Why?
  
  MP's, the business community and even Liberty, loudly stands up for only the Enron/Nat West 3 Bankers.
  
  I haven't even heard George Galloway speak up on behalf of Gary, although he did speak up for Babar Ahmad.
  
  Gary's was a victimless crime of cyber trespassing, where no security, no passwords and no firewall existed.
  He made no money; he did not harm anyone.
  He was searching for information on Free Energy and UFO's and was stupid enough to leave a political comment behind on military computers.
  A political comment that half the world already believes, whether or not there is any truth in it and for that people in higher places are determined to make him pay the price.
  
  Gary is facing seventy years in a US prison.
  The Enron/Nat West 3 are facing from five years up to twenty five years.
  Poor Babar Ahmad has hardly a hope in hell with the anti Muslim feeling that exists in America.
  America's legal system now bears little resemblance to the UK's, as demonstrated by the obscene sentences proposed which are way out of proportion to the crimes,
  but everyone goes along and pretends the US legal system is akin to ours.
  
  Do we have the death penalty!!!
  
  The judges in the UK are becoming like the three monkeys.
  (See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil)
  
  Even Free speech is becoming a thing of the past.
  
  I hope with all of my heart that all who I have mentioned, will not be extradited to the United States, to face obscene sentences for white collar, non violent crimes.
  
  I hope for Justice and pray that all who are facing extradition for non violent crimes will be tried in their own country, as is their Human Right.
  
  but I forgot; Tony Blair wants to get rid of the Human Rights act, as does the new Conservative leader.
  
  What is happening to our country?
  
  Free Gary
  
  Janis
  Janis, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• John Reed has ruled that Gary is to be extradited. This on a one sided treaty that America hasn't and will never sign as it's against their constitution.
  
  This excuse for a treaty was supposed to be used only for terrorists and look at what's happening?
  It's a disgusting joke.
  
  Ten Years after Mathew Bevan was accused of virtually the same crime as Gary, America wants to extradite Gary, because he embarrassed them, because their security is still non existent.
  
  Not enough real terrorists around obviously, so let's get a few small fry and destroy them for the hell of it.
  
  Maybe they are all aliens after all.
  
  Janis
  Janis, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• I am sorry Lucy but I knew John Reids hands were tied.
  Let us know what else we can do to help.
  EDMUND, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Yes John Reid's hands were obviously tied by our government's masters in the US.
  If they say jump! Tony and friends jump to whatever tune is played in order to please their masters.
  Mr Bush appears to run our country now, so we shouldn't fool ourselves by thinking we're actually voting for Tony Blair, who appears to do exactly as he's told.
  
  The US government are guilty of having no passwords and no firewalls, ten years after Mathew Bevan was accused of virtually the same crime.
  Fortunately Mathew Bevan was tried in his own country, in the UK and was not imprisoned because the US could not provide the evidence.
  Now the US don't have to provide Prima Facie evidence; we just hand our citizens over and if the US government says Jump!!!
  Tony Blair does just that, because he is desperate to please his masters.
  
  The US are lucky it was Gary who discovered how pathetically poor the internet security is on military machines. They should thank him for the wake up call but as they didn't secure their computer systems ten years after Mathew Bevan was accused of breaching them; they obviouly haven't learned much.
  
  I wonder how the people in the US are going to feel when they find this out?
  
  How many heads of state or heads of military security are going to be prosecuted and sent to Guantanamo for putting their citizens at risk by having no passwords and no firewalls?
  
  There are so many lies told by governments.
  
  Watch the "Loose Change" video (it's on the internet) which Michael Meacher wanted to show in the House Of Commons but was banned from doing so.
  It points out that at the time of 9/11, mobile phones absolutely did not work on aeroplanes, as the technology was not yet around for this to happen.
  Yet we hear what are supposed to be frantic calls from victims on the aeroplanes, talking to relatives on mobile phones!!!
  
  This was impossible at the time 9/11 happened, as mobile phones would not have worked on the aeroplanes. Only very recent technology has made this possible.
  
  Because they call something a conspiracy theory, doesn't mean it didn't happened.
  Putting this label on something is often a way to deflect from people finding out the truth.
  
  Watch "Loose Change" and tell me who should be prosecuted in the US and how come our newsmen and women are not pointing this out but are just going along with the propaganda and why was Michael Meacher refused permission to screen the "Loose Change" video in the House of Commons. (at the last minute)
  
  How many at the top are complicit of hideous actions, either by design or through fear of retribution.
  
  Gary is extremely small fry and did not damage anything; it's just that the US had no back up systems to rely on once they shut their own computer systems down.
  Any business has back up systems as a matter of course.
  
  Gary has never spammed people; he made no money; this was a victimless crime and the US government should be very glad that it was Gary who brought it to their attention how bad their "non" security was.
  
  Gary was searching for info on Free energy and he made the mistake of leaving a few political notes behind, such as:
  That the US government were guilty of state sponsored terrorism.
  
  Well whether rightly or wrongly, half of the planet believes this and this is why the US want an example made of Gary.
  They are hugely embarrassed by their own failings and they want Gary to pay the price for their embarrassement.
  
  Free Gary
  
  Lucille
  Lucille, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Please attend the demo on Tuesday 11th July from 11.30am until 2.30pm. which takes place outside the Royal Courts of Justice, situated on the Strand in London.
  
  Read below, the Truth about the gross unfairness of this unreciprocated Extradition Treaty.
  
  "Special Relationship"!
  
  Our Government would have us believe that the new arrangements with the US are both beneficial and not unusual. In fact both of these assertions are quite wrong.
  The US has bilateral extradition arrangements with 119 countries.
  
  The overwhelming majority of these (116) provide for the establishment of a prima facie case by the US, and every single one of these 116 is fully reciprocal.
  Approximately half of these arrangements further provide that "own nationals" need not be extradited.
  In only two cases other than the UK (France and Ireland) is there not a requirement on the US to provide prima facie evidence, and in each of these Treaties, the incorporation of either article 6 (France) or article 7 (Ireland) of the European Convention on Extradition provides ample protections for Irish or French citizens accused of crimes which would be justiciable in their country.
  
  In summary, therefore, even if the US were to ratify the new Treaty, which they realistically now have no incentive to do, our arrangements would place the rights of UK citizens below those of any other country in the world.
  Absent ratification by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, we cannot even avail ourselves of some of the supposed benefits of the new Treaty in extraditing people from the US.
  
  Is this really what the "special relationship" is meant to be about?
  
  Below is a link to an analysis of the US worldwide extradition treaty network which clearly shows how other nations protect their own citizens:
  
  http://www.friendsextradited.org/media/U...
  Janis, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• There is an anti Extradition Protest taking place outside of the Royal Courts of Justice in the Srand in London today (Tuesday 11th July)from 11.30 am until 2.30pm.
  
  This is the last chance for some of those facing extradition to America, on the strength of this unreciprocated excuse for a treaty.
  
  There is a link below which demonstrates the fact that UK citizens have significantly less rights than any other country in this regard, despite the Home Office and our government appearing to deliberately mislead us.
  
  Please attend this demo if you possibly can; it would be very greatly appreciated.
  
  Link Below:
  http://www.friendsextradited.org/media/U...
  Janis, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Perhaps some of the high-ranking US Government officials should be extradited from Earth by the Extraterrestrials. The ETs could alledge that the cover-up of UFO information is a breach of disclosure and a crime against all of Humanity.
  
  Good luck, Gary. I'm glad that you looked for what many people seek - the proof about UFOs.
  tezzajw, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• FROM NICK CLEGG, MP
  
  PLEASE WRITE TO THE SOLICITOR GENERAL TO OPPOSE EXTRADITIONS:
  
  "Today we won an unprecedented victory against the Government in a debate on the lop-sided Extradition Treaty with the United States.
  
  Three former employees of Nat West bank, together with south Londoner Babar Ahmed and up to 20 more British residents, face extradition to the United States under a treaty signed in 2003 that grants fewer rights to British citizens than to Americans.
  
  Just four Labour MPs voted in favour of the treaty in the symbolic vote called by the Liberal Democrats this afternoon.
  
  UK citizens can be extradited to the US without the United States having to make a clear "prima facie" case that they committed a crime. Yet we need to meet a much higher level of proof if we wish to extradite US citizens to the UK.
  
  Adding insult to injury, the Government hasn't even convinced the US Senate to ratify the treaty.
  
  The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning against this treaty for three years - ever since it was signed. We were the only party that voted against the extradition rules when they were brought into force.
  
  But the battle isn't over: the Nat West Three, to be extradited tomorrow, are only the tip of the iceberg. Many other extradition cases are in the pipeline, and will be decided under this unfair treaty unless the Government acts now.
  
  Thanks to today's debate and vote, the House of Commons has signalled its clear condemnation of the Extradition Treaty. Now we need you to do the same.
  
  Please write to the Solicitor General and ask him to support my Extradition (United States of America) Bill that would repeal parts of the Extradition Act 2003 and bring an end to these unfair extradition procedures:
  
  Mike O'Brien
  House of Commons
  London
  SW1A 0AA
  
  (Personal letters are the most effective way of lobbying him).
  
  With your help, we can put even more pressure on the Government to take action.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  Nick Clegg
  Shadow Home Secretary, Liberal Democrats
  
  PS Please do also encourage other people to write to him. If you have your own blog or website, perhaps you could also mention this letter-writing campaign there?"
  tuppennyblue, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• I will write to the Solicitor General as suggested by Nick Clegg. I am delighted to see MPs such as Nick Clegg using Pledge Bank by the way.
  Alan Ray-Jones, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• On Tuesday 11th July, Alan Simpson MP for Nottingham South and Jeremy Corbyn MP for Islington North in London, delivered a letter of protest from a group of Italian Parliamentarians, to the Home Office, on behalf of Gary McKinnon.
  
  Their covering letter was signed by 15 Labour MPs:-
  
  Rt Hon John Reid MP
  Home Office Minister
  2 Marsham Street
  London
  SW1P 4DF
  
  Tuesday, July 11, 2006
  
  
  Dear John,
  
  Much attention has been given to the case for having tougher and clearer guidelines governing the extradition of UK citizens for trial in the US. So far, this attention has focussed on the three bankers involved in the Enron fraud. We want to raise a different case with you, namely the proposed extradition of Gary McKinnon.
  
  Mr McKinnon is accused of attacking the US military and faces a possible sentence of over 60 years in prison. He could (and should) though, be tried in the UK under the UK Computer Misuse Act 1990. Since he was arrested under this Act in 2002, and released without charge, we fail to understand the basis on which he is offered for extradition.
  
  We have also been approached by MPs representing all of the parties in the new government in Italy and agreed to pass on to you their representations against his extradition. We hope you will take all these representations seriously and insist that no extradition is considered until the US produces prima facie evidence of the ‘damage’ he is supposed to have done.
  
  Yours sincerely,
  
  Alan Simpson MP
  
  This is in addition to the 245 Members of Parliament from the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Nationalist parties who voted symbolically on Wednesday, calling for fair and reciprocal UK-US Extraditon arrangements, and the 216 Opposition and Cross-bench Peers, in the House of Lords, who amended the Police and Justice Bill on Tuesday, during the Committee Stage of the Bill, to do exactly that.
  Janis, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Well what can you say? The world proves just how fucked up it is, time and time again. Thanks for supporting your own people 'home secretary' :(
  styx, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• ONCE AGAIN WE BACK DOWN TO AMERICA IS IT TRUE OUR GOVERMENT IS BUSHES PUPPETS GOOD LUCK GARY YOU WENT FOR THE TRUTH FOUND IT AND NOW YOU NO TOO MUCH HOPE YOUR APPEAL GOES WELL
  DAVE, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Gary is my hero, he is articulate and open about his activities. The US military should thank him for hacking their computer systems, and they should be deeply embaressed that their IT department sucks ass!!! Who can imagine having a professional computer system attached to the the Internet without a firewall or an Administrator password.
  
  I think Gary's comment on the BBC news, that the US military probably doesn't use professional IT specialists, but train up soilders to fill the position is correct. How else could one explain such dumbness in a country which boasts such amazing technological accomplishments???
  
  FREE GARY!!!!!!
  Thomas Alexander, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• If Gary McKinnon is Extradited Its clear proof of what he states and this will just help prove these conspiracies. Let Gary McKinnon be! He is a case of cyber Trespassing. Yet People can break into an American home hurt themselves on a kitchen knife, Sue the homeowner, and WIN!!! Wow, Im rootin for the powers of Justice here, where are you?
  Daniel Lea, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Wait a minute, what is happening here?
  If they are seriously upset at Gary, what about, Ive read his interviews, what he has put out to the press. If they are mad at him at that, doesn't that mean what he is saying is serious, and someone in nasa, and the navy are taking what he is saying seriously?
  if there are things they think he saw, that he isn't talking about, don't you think that not giving him freedom, will make him mull over what he saw, to be an eventual informational time bomb?
  something not right is happening here.
  
  anyway, while incarcerating this guy, for the rest of his youth, he should also be giving the us medal of honour, for uncovering defects in the US gov't's computer network.
  charles kafka
  Space Navy? (why is the gov't taking this seriously... somethings not right here.)
  charles kafka, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• I belive i am right in saying the US Govt wnat to use him as an example. Like they did with Kevin Mitnick. They want to make it clear to all young geeks and compute hackers that it is wrong to do and give it up. It is a scare tatic used by the US, so that they can sit back leave their lax security there, and stop hackers targeting there systems with no work. Lazy, irresponsible, embaressing and stupid. I have no doubt that it will be like Monoply, no salary and straight to Go To Jail.
  Michael Findlay, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Re British citizen (My Son) Gary McKinnon is facing seventy years in a US prison for unauthorised computer access.
  In last weeks appeal hearing, we discovered that Ed Gibson (Ex FBI) had "secretly" told my son's legal team of New Jersey's determination to "see Gary Fry" (Electric Chair)
  
  It is now five years since Gary was arrested in 2002 but we heard nothing more until 2005, when Gary was re-arrested.
  Gary has always denied causing any damage but the US government have to claim damage in order to extradite him.
  They waited until Blunket had secretly signed an extradition "treaty" with the US.
  We are quite literally the only country in the world who will extradite their own citizens to the US without any prima facie evidence and on the strength of merely an allegation.
  
  Free Gary McKinnon - or at least try him in the UK Free Gary McKinnon support blog.
  freegary.org.uk/ - 2k -
  
  Here are some Links: McKinnon will turn to Home Secretary should his appeal fail
  
  'Pentagon hacker' plays joker on US authorities Register
  all 2 news articles »
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DyhnLkTRUc Demo from Free Gary Supporters on behalf of my son Gary. There are lots of Free Gary comments at the end of the video.
  
  Free Gary McKinnon - or at least try him in the UK Free Gary McKinnon support blog.
  freegary.org.uk/ - 2k -
  
  I wake up every morning gripped by terror at the thought of my only child being extradited to face a possible seventy years in a hardline US prison and the mention of execution is a very real and terrifying prospect.
  I don't know what to do to stop my son from being extradited.
  Anyone in the UK can be extradited to the US on the stregnth of an allegation alone and without any opportunity to defend the allegations in a UK court.
  It has now been five years since Gary was first arrested, this in itself has been a five year sentence of continual stress and heartache for our family.
  
  Free Gary!
  Janis (Gary's mum)
  Janis, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Re-Gary. Links as below:
  
  http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...
  
  www.freegary.org.uk
  Janis, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Please help us to FREE my son GARY by signing the new petition below.
  
  http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/GaryMcKinnon/
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/15/...
  
  http://freegary.org.uk/
  
  A Huge Thank You to Callum Guy who has organised this petition on behalf of Gary.
  It is very humbling when people I don't even know go out of their way to help my son and we cannot thank everyone enough for supporting Gary.
  
  Thank You!!!....
  
  and Thank You to HVTV on You Tube from us and from Gary and his girlfriend. We only found out about this video during Gary's appeal hearing a few weeks ago.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DyhnLkTRUc
  
  Kindest Regards
  
  J (Gary's mum)
  Jay, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Disgust at this whole thing. This is an excerp from the email I sent.
  
  To make him serve 40+ years is absolutely abominable - I have seen murderous men sentenced for much less. He has not harmed anybody - I think everyone has the right to know if some otherworldly civilization is visiting us for whatever reason. We all have the right to know.
  
  NASA have a habitual track record of lying through their teeth, so as not to cause an alarm. Unidentified flying objects have been sighted in space, and all three incidents were ordered to be covered up. When Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong walked upon the moon, they were rumoured to have seen two UFOs whilst walking on the surface of the moon on July 20, 1969. In 1953, Gordon Cooper, who later joined NASA, flew over a UFO in his aeroplane. In 1965, James McDivitt and Ed White spotted a silver cylinder with an antenna like protrusion whilst orbiting Earth from 100 miles up. Eight years on from that, Jack Lousma, Owen Garriott and Alan Bean spotted a rotating red shape 270 miles up from earth, and started taking photos of it.
  
  All three incidents were covered up by NASA.
  
  Look at someone like Martin Luther King - he was murdered for fighting for the freedom and equality of black citizens. In my opinion, you are condoning the same sort of fate towards Mr McKinnon for fighting for truth and justice.
  
  I am not saying Mr McKinnon has not broken the law, but he has done so because he is fed up of the lies. The Americans are angry and using him as a scapegoat because someone blew their cover, and I think after over 3 decades of lying to us, both the US government and NASA thoroughly deserved to have the rug jerked from underneath their feet.
  
  Please let Gary McKinnon rightfully be served proper justice in his own country.
  Dobie, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• The US government are plainly and simply exploiting a situation to cover up for their gross negligence in security. The moronic government body which was responsible for organizing the I.T. have avoided being held accountable for their inability to protect important data from unclassified people.
  
  Gary is a hero for the freedom of the Hacker ethos which was started in the "free" minds of the American telephone exchange days and the CIA and Military computer personnel should have the courage to admit THE POLICY THEY FOLLOWED WAS RETARDED AND SHORT SIGHTED.
  
  If the British government allow this currently one-sided treaty to be implimented then it will be to the shame of history of the British Empire, and it will show that the American Empire is no more progressive than any other in history. Invade, Bully and Scilence all who oppose you.
  
  Fck Blair, Fck Bush, Fck the governments which surrounds them, and Fck the English Speaking media for allowing them to get away with such a disgusting breach of human rights.
  
  I am truly ashamed to call myself an Englishman...
  Thomas Alexander, 3 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• The Decision in Gary McKinnon's Appeal before the High Court is due tomorrow, Tuesday 3rd April 2007, at about a quarter to 10 in the morning:
  
  See the UK Courts Service Daily List:
  
  http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/l...
  
  "Administrative Court and Divisional Courts
  Tuesday 3rd April 2007
  
  ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
  
  [...]
  
  COURT 6
  
  Before LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY and MR JUSTICE GOLDRING
  
  Tuesday 3 April, 2007
  
  At a quarter to 10
  
  FOR JUDGMENT
  
  CO/5897/2006 Mckinnon v Sshd And Others"
  
  
  Sshd = Secretary of State for the Home Department i.e. John Reid.
  
  How will this Decision go, for Gary and for all the rest of us who have to tolerate British Justice ?
  
  Time to say a few prayers.
  
  The Royal Courts of Justice
  
  http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSC...
  
  are located in The Strand in London, and open at 9am.
  
  See location Map:
  http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=...
  fg, 2 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• This is another sad example of Britain caving into US demands once more. There was a time when we would have refused such demands, what has changed Mr Blair?
  Alan Fisher, 2 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• There is a press release & extract from todays judgement and a petition which can be accessed from the Free Gary website (link above)
  We hope that many British citizens/residents will sign this petition.
  
  Thank You
  
  J
  Jay, 2 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Here is the Link to the Free Gary website.
  http://freegary.org.uk/
  Jay, 2 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• Pourquoi veulent-ils l'emmener a Guatanamo ??????? Et c'est koi ce délire de l'accuser a tord de causer des dommages important dans les systeme ???????? MES COUILLES !!!! Ils sont comme des cons avec un mec qui en sais long et un jour on saura la vérité...
  
  David
  
  Courage l'ami.
  Tid@v, 2 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!
• I find it quite unbelievable that the US Goverment/Military etc have jumped on this so heavily. Have they forgotten their education, their morals, knowing right from wrong, human values. This man hacked into systems. If the US people were doing their job properly, he wouldn't have achieved this.Rather than waste millions on locking Gary up for ever, use him. learn from him. I am not even going to enter into the puppet of our PM with US president. I'll probably be shot in a car park one evening by secret intelligence! Have all our goverments totally lost the reality of life. Playing tough games with minor criminals like Gary just proves we have a bunch of bumbling school boys running departments in our countries. He's taught the US a lesson, caught them out - now they should shut up, lock him up in a luxury hotel for 2 years and Learn from him, and let him have a life again. Clearly he had no criminal intent to destroy or cause grave issue. he's a computer geek for goodness sake. I sincerely hope Gary doesn't pay with all his life for this. It would be a complete travesty.
  Si Thomson, 2 years ago Yn faleisus? Rhowch wybod!