Talk:UK hacker faces extradition to US
"... McKinnon freely admits to having caused $700,000 worth of damage to US military computer systems ...". Actually AFAIK, MrKinnon DENIES having caused $700,000 worth of damage. You can hear it straight from McKinnon in his BBC interview (there's a link to it on wikipedia)
"... regarding technology ..."
"... regarding technology ..." - Specifically, it's anti-gravity and "free energy" technology that he alleges the Govt. is trying to conceal. Thank you for the $700K change, BTW! 126.96.36.199 19:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
What about citizenship - and way of justice ?
A state should first finish its internal lawsuit case. Keep on the rules means, that you have to take same steps with people, who do a car violation in a foreign country (or unlawful business). Because there is only a property damage and no one`s body hurt. Citizenship should prevent his citizens from other countries. Some rules should apply for all, regardless of a countries reputation in justice.
So first step is that the UK justice is finishing its lawsuit. So far I know it is international law, that first step is that the one who is damaged claims the person in his homeland, if he is already there. By national states law it is also possible to sue its own citizen. In some cases federal prosecuter has to start a lawsuit against his citizen for crimes done in a foreign country which are a heavy crime in this country.
On the other side he has to prevent his citizen from to hard punishments from other countries. A back in AA stole in BB from B money and company information. In AA he will be imprisoned 5 years and in BB 30 years. B has first to sue A in AA. First the case has to be finished in A. B has to deliver all evidences. B will have the right to claim at international law court if AA tries to use couple of years for the lawsuit to prevent punishment If sueing of A fails because B does not offer all evidences it is not right to extradition him to BB. Maximizing punishment on this way is against human rights.
Generally AA is never allowed to extradict anybody BB without written aggreements. Where and how the lawsuit will take place has to be fixed. Promises are nothing and can not be claimed. If unsure than only the lawayer travels to lawsuit in BB.
There are a lot of rules, which should never be changed. They are basis for our free democratic world. We should not sabotate them by feelings of revenge or simply lack of knowledge in small pieces step by step. We will build up fences, which will trap us later.
This is very complicated logic. But this principe is the difference between democratic organsided states, which accepting the international rights (Helsinki, UNO). I am not a jurist, but I had some lessons. What has this to do with this article and Wiki - I would like that somebody adds as background some of the fitting laws from the international law - origin is in Helsinky. Of course s.b. who is more familiar and neutral.
- Speaking after the trial, District Judge Nicholas Evans said, "I readily accept, if convicted in the US, the probable sentence is likely to be appreciably harsher in the US than, in comparable circumstances, it would be in the UK. It must be obvious to any defendant that if you choose to commit a crime in a foreign country, you run the risk of being prosecuted in that country."
HOLD UP. So if I deny the Holocaust, can I be extradited to Germany and crucified? --188.8.131.52 01:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Please add to UFO Category?
- Hey, I know this is late, but can we please add this article to the UFO category? Category:UFO -184.108.40.206 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)