Wednesday 23 December 2009
More from Ms *****
MP: Let me address ludicrous misrepresentations
2 December 2009
Hull Daily Mail
Letters
Please allow me to address the ludicrous misrepresentation of the facts by the Conservative candidate for East Hull concerning Gary McKinnon (Letters, December 2).
Mr McKinnon is accused of serious criminal offences. He is alleged to have repeatedly hacked into US computer networks over a period of 13 months, including 97 US military computers from which he deleted vital operating systems and then copied encrypted information on to his own computer, shutting down the entire US Army's military district of Washington's computer network for 24 hours shortly after 3,000 Americans had been killed in the attack on the Twin Towers.
He has admitted to leaving the following message on one of the US Defence Departments computers: "US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days. It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year! I am Solo. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels."
The prosecuting authorities have decided he should answer for his actions.
Mr McKinnon has challenged his extradition before the district judge, the High Court, the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights all of whom have ruled that the extradition should go ahead.
It was at that stage in August last year that Asperger's was first diagnosed. He then made representation to my predecessor as Home Secretary that in view of this diagnosis his extradition would breach Article 3 of the European Convention On Human Rights. After the Home Secretary decided his condition would not constitute such a breach, the case went before the High Court, which pointed out that people with much more serious illnesses had been sent from the UK and rejected his appeal, stating his case "does not approach Article 3 severity".
I concluded recently the latest medical reports did not change that view. Extradition does not denote guilt or innocence and Mr McKinnon's legal representatives have been given time to seek to appeal my decision, once again in the courts.
The High Court was impressed by the assurances of the US authorities about the care Mr McKinnon will receive, but so far as I am aware nobody, apart from your correspondent, has argued that Asperger's (or any other illness for that matter) should insulate people charged with serious criminal offences from prosecution under the law.
Alan Johnson MP.
Dear Sirs
Please allow me to address the Home Secretary's ludicrous misrepresentation of the facts concerning Gary McKinnon (Letters, December 2nd).
Mr McKinnon was accused of the Summary Offence of Computer Misuse in 2002, which he admits, but which is not a federal offence in the US, and without $5,000 of damage on each machine was not, and is not a warrant for extradition. For those who do not know, a Summary Offence in the UK may not be prosecuted after 6 months have expired from the date of the offence, and where admitted, and a first offence, may be disposed of by means of a Caution. That is the nature and gravity of the crime to which Mr McKinnon has admitted.
Mr McKinnon was indicted in the US in 2002 and a US arrest warrant was then issued, but the US did not apply to the UK to extradite Mr McKinnon until late 2004, when the new extradition arrangements with the US were conveniently in force, and no evidence of alleged damage was now required in order to extradite. One would have thought there was a time-limit on making such a delayed accusation, some several years after the event.
Please note that Mr McKinnon has always consistently denied the allegations of damage to the machines and systems he accessed. Note also that no evidence has been provided by the prosecution for any damage caused by Mr McKinnon, and that the information he accessed was not so secret or sensitive as for there to be any passwords or firewalls in place at the time to protect it.
Mr McKinnon did not shut down any computers. The US Military and Government decided to shut down their own machines, when the flaws in their security were highlighted to them by Mr McKinnon. This was confirmed in public by a report from computer expert Professor Peter Sommer at the last court hearing. Peter Sommer does a great deal of work for the police in this area and he stated that the financial damage claimed by the US was merely for security/firewalls that the US should have had installed in the first place.
As the Home Secretary says, the prosecuting authorities did indeed decide that Mr McKinnon should answer for his actions. Mr McKinnon’s solicitor has stated that the High Tech Crime Unit and CPS lawyer, and head of Gary’s case at the time, Mr Russell Tyner, was keen to prosecute Mr McKinnon in the UK for Computer Misuse, but informed her that he had been advised “from the very top” to stand aside and allow America to deal with Mr McKinnon, as they wanted to extradite him. Make of that what you will.
The Lords recently ruled that secret evidence could not be used to detain anyone. Surely this should also apply to extradition which is a cruel and unusual punishment for a non violent crime.
As to the prosecution of the stronger allegation of computer damage, a recent CPS disclosure to the court marked the US ‘evidence’ as ‘hearsay’ and ‘no evidence’. The Judge, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, said, and I quote: “Do you realise how embarrassing it would be for the CPS if Gary McKinnon were tried for this in the UK?” and the prosecution answered “Yes”.
The Home Secretary keeps referring to successive court judgements that have found in favour of the lawfulness of this extradition. In view of the fact that these judgements do not appear to reflect the facts upon which they purport to be based, it might behove him to be more circumspect about this, because of what it implies about the quality of the legal process throughout this matter. In my own correspondence with the Home Office regarding this case, the Home Secretary appears unable to offer any logical argument for this extradition other than referring me to this series of seemingly irrational court judgements.
Mr Johnson makes much of his assertion that the notes left by Mr McKinnon on the US computer systems were left in the immediate aftermath of the dreadful events of 9/11, but in fact these notes were sent many months thereafter. It is true that Mr McKinnon apparently believed in the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job, hence his note "that he believed it was no accident there was a stand down after 9/11" but the messages he left were no more than a cyber peace protest, as Mr Johnson is well aware.
As regards the seriousness of Mr McKinnon’s alleged crimes, this must surely be assessed in the context that he is, and was at the time of allegedly committing them, a sufferer of Asperger’s Syndrome, which is a form of autism. That the US may have initially misconstrued Mr McKinnon’s actions in the light of 9/11 does not alter the facts regarding the nature of this crime; owing to his condition, Mr McKinnon could not have appreciated how his actions were likely to be misinterpreted. It is clear to anyone with the slightest understanding of Asperger’s Syndrome (which was not diagnosed in childhood, owing to its lack of recognition at that time) that Mr McKinnon’s actions were symptomatic not of terrorist or malicious intent, but of his condition. Thus, Mr Johnson’s claim regarding the seriousness of Mr McKinnon's alleged crime is somewhat undermined, and the fact that he persists in this claim after full consideration of the medical evidence is rather concerning.
I do not believe anyone is arguing that Asperger’s Syndrome should confer blanket immunity from prosecution under the law, as Mr Johnson suggests. Mr McKinnon's family and lawyers have argued only for Mr McKinnon to be tried in the U.K. They have never said he should be immune from prosecution as Alan Johnson is well aware.
What is argued is that in view of the atypically disastrous effect that extradition would have on someone with Asperger’s, the balance of proportionality between the gravity of the crime, and the effect of the prosecution/punishment on the defendant should be weighed accordingly. Mr Johnson has yet to address this point, preferring, it seems, to address a straw man that no-one has proposed. The violation of Article 3 of Mr McKinnon’s Human Rights that this extradition would, in view of his Asperger’s, necessarily entail, is such as to be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the crime. What is relevant to any consideration of the breach of Mr McKinnon’s Human Rights is not the seriousness of his illness per se, as Mr Johnson appears to believe the courts were right to argue, but the relevance of it in regards to its impact upon the suffering that this extradition will cause.
Each case should surely be taken on its own merits; the merits of this case not only fail to warrant this extradition, but also constitute powerful arguments against it. For some reason, and against all evidence and advice, the Home Secretary is keen to argue to the contrary.
I note that Mr Johnson’s letter to your newspaper was published on 2nd December, shortly after his decision on 27th November not to refuse the proposed extradition. One could argue that this indicates a degree of bias in the Home Secretary’s decision-making, and calls into question his suitedness to be making decisions about this matter.
Mr Johnson’s seeming disregard for the facts in this matter, and contempt for expert advice (including the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee), as well as his shocking disregard for the ancient and modern British values of decency, compassion and fair play, are a very serious cause for public concern. It is my contention that this Home Secretary is no longer fit for public office while he continues to permit this wrongful, cruel and unjust extradition to go ahead, and to seek to mislead the public and the House of Commons as to its legitimacy. I for one call for his immediate and permanent resignation from politics.
Yours sincerely
Ms *****
2 December 2009
Hull Daily Mail
Letters
Please allow me to address the ludicrous misrepresentation of the facts by the Conservative candidate for East Hull concerning Gary McKinnon (Letters, December 2).
Mr McKinnon is accused of serious criminal offences. He is alleged to have repeatedly hacked into US computer networks over a period of 13 months, including 97 US military computers from which he deleted vital operating systems and then copied encrypted information on to his own computer, shutting down the entire US Army's military district of Washington's computer network for 24 hours shortly after 3,000 Americans had been killed in the attack on the Twin Towers.
He has admitted to leaving the following message on one of the US Defence Departments computers: "US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days. It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year! I am Solo. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels."
The prosecuting authorities have decided he should answer for his actions.
Mr McKinnon has challenged his extradition before the district judge, the High Court, the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights all of whom have ruled that the extradition should go ahead.
It was at that stage in August last year that Asperger's was first diagnosed. He then made representation to my predecessor as Home Secretary that in view of this diagnosis his extradition would breach Article 3 of the European Convention On Human Rights. After the Home Secretary decided his condition would not constitute such a breach, the case went before the High Court, which pointed out that people with much more serious illnesses had been sent from the UK and rejected his appeal, stating his case "does not approach Article 3 severity".
I concluded recently the latest medical reports did not change that view. Extradition does not denote guilt or innocence and Mr McKinnon's legal representatives have been given time to seek to appeal my decision, once again in the courts.
The High Court was impressed by the assurances of the US authorities about the care Mr McKinnon will receive, but so far as I am aware nobody, apart from your correspondent, has argued that Asperger's (or any other illness for that matter) should insulate people charged with serious criminal offences from prosecution under the law.
Alan Johnson MP.
Dear Sirs
Please allow me to address the Home Secretary's ludicrous misrepresentation of the facts concerning Gary McKinnon (Letters, December 2nd).
Mr McKinnon was accused of the Summary Offence of Computer Misuse in 2002, which he admits, but which is not a federal offence in the US, and without $5,000 of damage on each machine was not, and is not a warrant for extradition. For those who do not know, a Summary Offence in the UK may not be prosecuted after 6 months have expired from the date of the offence, and where admitted, and a first offence, may be disposed of by means of a Caution. That is the nature and gravity of the crime to which Mr McKinnon has admitted.
Mr McKinnon was indicted in the US in 2002 and a US arrest warrant was then issued, but the US did not apply to the UK to extradite Mr McKinnon until late 2004, when the new extradition arrangements with the US were conveniently in force, and no evidence of alleged damage was now required in order to extradite. One would have thought there was a time-limit on making such a delayed accusation, some several years after the event.
Please note that Mr McKinnon has always consistently denied the allegations of damage to the machines and systems he accessed. Note also that no evidence has been provided by the prosecution for any damage caused by Mr McKinnon, and that the information he accessed was not so secret or sensitive as for there to be any passwords or firewalls in place at the time to protect it.
Mr McKinnon did not shut down any computers. The US Military and Government decided to shut down their own machines, when the flaws in their security were highlighted to them by Mr McKinnon. This was confirmed in public by a report from computer expert Professor Peter Sommer at the last court hearing. Peter Sommer does a great deal of work for the police in this area and he stated that the financial damage claimed by the US was merely for security/firewalls that the US should have had installed in the first place.
As the Home Secretary says, the prosecuting authorities did indeed decide that Mr McKinnon should answer for his actions. Mr McKinnon’s solicitor has stated that the High Tech Crime Unit and CPS lawyer, and head of Gary’s case at the time, Mr Russell Tyner, was keen to prosecute Mr McKinnon in the UK for Computer Misuse, but informed her that he had been advised “from the very top” to stand aside and allow America to deal with Mr McKinnon, as they wanted to extradite him. Make of that what you will.
The Lords recently ruled that secret evidence could not be used to detain anyone. Surely this should also apply to extradition which is a cruel and unusual punishment for a non violent crime.
As to the prosecution of the stronger allegation of computer damage, a recent CPS disclosure to the court marked the US ‘evidence’ as ‘hearsay’ and ‘no evidence’. The Judge, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, said, and I quote: “Do you realise how embarrassing it would be for the CPS if Gary McKinnon were tried for this in the UK?” and the prosecution answered “Yes”.
The Home Secretary keeps referring to successive court judgements that have found in favour of the lawfulness of this extradition. In view of the fact that these judgements do not appear to reflect the facts upon which they purport to be based, it might behove him to be more circumspect about this, because of what it implies about the quality of the legal process throughout this matter. In my own correspondence with the Home Office regarding this case, the Home Secretary appears unable to offer any logical argument for this extradition other than referring me to this series of seemingly irrational court judgements.
Mr Johnson makes much of his assertion that the notes left by Mr McKinnon on the US computer systems were left in the immediate aftermath of the dreadful events of 9/11, but in fact these notes were sent many months thereafter. It is true that Mr McKinnon apparently believed in the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job, hence his note "that he believed it was no accident there was a stand down after 9/11" but the messages he left were no more than a cyber peace protest, as Mr Johnson is well aware.
As regards the seriousness of Mr McKinnon’s alleged crimes, this must surely be assessed in the context that he is, and was at the time of allegedly committing them, a sufferer of Asperger’s Syndrome, which is a form of autism. That the US may have initially misconstrued Mr McKinnon’s actions in the light of 9/11 does not alter the facts regarding the nature of this crime; owing to his condition, Mr McKinnon could not have appreciated how his actions were likely to be misinterpreted. It is clear to anyone with the slightest understanding of Asperger’s Syndrome (which was not diagnosed in childhood, owing to its lack of recognition at that time) that Mr McKinnon’s actions were symptomatic not of terrorist or malicious intent, but of his condition. Thus, Mr Johnson’s claim regarding the seriousness of Mr McKinnon's alleged crime is somewhat undermined, and the fact that he persists in this claim after full consideration of the medical evidence is rather concerning.
I do not believe anyone is arguing that Asperger’s Syndrome should confer blanket immunity from prosecution under the law, as Mr Johnson suggests. Mr McKinnon's family and lawyers have argued only for Mr McKinnon to be tried in the U.K. They have never said he should be immune from prosecution as Alan Johnson is well aware.
What is argued is that in view of the atypically disastrous effect that extradition would have on someone with Asperger’s, the balance of proportionality between the gravity of the crime, and the effect of the prosecution/punishment on the defendant should be weighed accordingly. Mr Johnson has yet to address this point, preferring, it seems, to address a straw man that no-one has proposed. The violation of Article 3 of Mr McKinnon’s Human Rights that this extradition would, in view of his Asperger’s, necessarily entail, is such as to be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the crime. What is relevant to any consideration of the breach of Mr McKinnon’s Human Rights is not the seriousness of his illness per se, as Mr Johnson appears to believe the courts were right to argue, but the relevance of it in regards to its impact upon the suffering that this extradition will cause.
Each case should surely be taken on its own merits; the merits of this case not only fail to warrant this extradition, but also constitute powerful arguments against it. For some reason, and against all evidence and advice, the Home Secretary is keen to argue to the contrary.
I note that Mr Johnson’s letter to your newspaper was published on 2nd December, shortly after his decision on 27th November not to refuse the proposed extradition. One could argue that this indicates a degree of bias in the Home Secretary’s decision-making, and calls into question his suitedness to be making decisions about this matter.
Mr Johnson’s seeming disregard for the facts in this matter, and contempt for expert advice (including the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee), as well as his shocking disregard for the ancient and modern British values of decency, compassion and fair play, are a very serious cause for public concern. It is my contention that this Home Secretary is no longer fit for public office while he continues to permit this wrongful, cruel and unjust extradition to go ahead, and to seek to mislead the public and the House of Commons as to its legitimacy. I for one call for his immediate and permanent resignation from politics.
Yours sincerely
Ms *****
Thursday 10 December 2009
Correspondence from Ms *****
Dear Alan Johnson
Further to my email to you of 3rd December (Ref T21920/09), I am today advised via your office by telephone that I can expect to receive your reply by 5th January 2010.
In view of the desperate timeframe you have chosen to inflict on Gary McKinnon at this time in regards to his recourse to a Judicial Review of your decision not to halt his extradition, I must say I am concerned somewhat about the possibility that by January 2010 my email will be superseded by events and be rendered academic.
I therefore write to you again, to repeat my exhortation to you to halt this cruel, unjust, and unnecessary extradition. If Queen's Prerogative could be invoked for the signing of the treaty with the USA, it can be invoked again now to halt the extradition and revoke this rotten law. If ever there was a special case, Gary McKinnon is it.
I suggest to you also that you may wish to consider your position as Home Secretary, in the event that you remain unwilling to demonstrate any regard for British Sovereignty, for justice, for Parliamentary or public opinion, or indeed for human rights. I would suggest that your position is fast becoming untenable, while you persist in supporting this extradition.
I look forward to your earliest response
Yours sincerely
Ms *****
cc Karen Buck MP
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035 4742
E-mail: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
8 December 2009
Reference: T21920/9
Dear Ms *****,
Thank you for your further e-mails to the Home Secretary concerning the USA’s request for the extradition of Mr Gary McKinnon.
You are by now familiar with the history of the case. It is plain that you have been following it closely and we note your continuing strength of feeling about it.
In recent public statements, the Home Secretary has made crystal clear that his decisions on the case have not been taken lightly. The High Court has affirmed, however, that – at variance with how some commentators have reported matters – there is no general discretion by which the Home Secretary may call a halt at this stage to extradition proceedings.
The correct test – again as the court has clarified – is that the Home Secretary must call a halt if to extradite would breach a person’s human rights. If otherwise, extradition must take its course. That, after earnest consideration, was the conclusion at which the Home Secretary arrived on 26 November.
As you have learned, Mr McKinnon’s solicitors are now to mount a judicial challenge to this further decision. We note your point about the time limit for doing so. There is no customary three months period, as you appear to believe. The position as set out in rules of court (the Civil Procedure Rules), is that any judicial review must be lodged promptly and in any event within three must of the disputed decision. In the context and circumstances of this particular case which has already withstood all defence challenges and the very closest judicial scrutiny, the Home Secretary took the view that it was reasonable for any further judicial review to be lodged by 10 December. Mr McKinnon’s solicitors have intimated their ability to lodge by that date.
Bob Wood
Extradition Section
Dear Mr Wood
Thank you very much indeed for your reply to my recent emails to the Home Secretary.
Once again, I am somewhat dismayed by the content therein.
In particular, your repeated references to court decisions in Gary's case only serve to cast doubt upon the integrity of the legal process. This is because the judgements referred to do not appear to be consistent with the facts upon which they purport to be based. As you can imagine, I find this deeply worrying, hence my correspondence with your office.
As regards the Home Secretary's discretion to intervene to halt the extradition, I would be very grateful for your explanation for the discrepancy between the Home Secretary's view, and that of the Commons Select Committee, Liberty, and numerous very eminent barristers. I find it difficult to understand how a man with no legal training could possibly presume to dismiss the widely-held and publicly stated views of the country's top legal minds. It may help you in formulating your answer to know that I watched the Select Committee Hearing on 10th November with my own eyes, as well as being aware of Keith Vaz's recommendations to Alan Johnson arising therefrom.
As to Mr Johnson's view regarding the violation of Mr McKinnon's Human Rights, in particular Article 3 (though I understand Art.8 is pertinent also), I wonder if you could please explain to me exactly what this view is based on? It cannot be based on any consideration of the impact of Gary's Asperger's on the degree of suffering that extradition from his home country would entail. It cannot be based either on any appreciation of how Gary's mental state has been affected by the trauma inflicted upon him thus far. He is suicidal. I would be grateful if you could please detail exactly how much more ill and vulnerable Mr McKinnon would need to be before Mr Johnson would accept that this extradition is a violation of Article 3? As I have stated before, Mr Johnson's view on this point beggars belief, to the point where both his competence and his conscience are called into question. I am not asserting that his decision was taken lightly, merely requesting to know his reasoning. His conclusion is not supported by the premises, you see. It is illogical.
In relation to the time-limit for submitting an application for judicial review, my question was regarding Mr Johnson's reasons for not allowing the three months he is entitled to permit, and more specifically, for not allowing Mr McKinnon's solicitors reasonable time for submission. Aside from it seeming sadistic and unnecessary to insist on seven days, as Mr Johnson initially did, the legal implications of not permitting reasonable time meant that that decision was not defensible, which (among many other things) would appear once again to cast doubt upon Mr Johnson's competence as a decision-maker, and in matters of law.
I infer from your letter that Mr Johnson does not intend to halt the extradition at this time. If that is the case, I must respectfully repeat once again my suggestion that he consider his position as Home Secretary. Mr Johnson's actions are bringing his Office into disrepute. His persistence in lending his support to this malicious, legally dubious, and wholly unnecessary extradition, while appearing to mislead the House of Commons and the public as to the facts of the matter, would imply that he is not a man of good character, and is wholly unsuited for political office.
I look forward to your earliest reply, and continue to hope that Mr Johnson will see fit to halt the extradition.
With very best wishes
Yours sincerely
Ms *****
cc Alan Johnson Home Secretary, Karen Buck MP, Keith Vaz MP
(Interesting how the Home Office fail to address the point about Queen's Prerogative)
Further to my email to you of 3rd December (Ref T21920/09), I am today advised via your office by telephone that I can expect to receive your reply by 5th January 2010.
In view of the desperate timeframe you have chosen to inflict on Gary McKinnon at this time in regards to his recourse to a Judicial Review of your decision not to halt his extradition, I must say I am concerned somewhat about the possibility that by January 2010 my email will be superseded by events and be rendered academic.
I therefore write to you again, to repeat my exhortation to you to halt this cruel, unjust, and unnecessary extradition. If Queen's Prerogative could be invoked for the signing of the treaty with the USA, it can be invoked again now to halt the extradition and revoke this rotten law. If ever there was a special case, Gary McKinnon is it.
I suggest to you also that you may wish to consider your position as Home Secretary, in the event that you remain unwilling to demonstrate any regard for British Sovereignty, for justice, for Parliamentary or public opinion, or indeed for human rights. I would suggest that your position is fast becoming untenable, while you persist in supporting this extradition.
I look forward to your earliest response
Yours sincerely
Ms *****
cc Karen Buck MP
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035 4742
E-mail: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
8 December 2009
Reference: T21920/9
Dear Ms *****,
Thank you for your further e-mails to the Home Secretary concerning the USA’s request for the extradition of Mr Gary McKinnon.
You are by now familiar with the history of the case. It is plain that you have been following it closely and we note your continuing strength of feeling about it.
In recent public statements, the Home Secretary has made crystal clear that his decisions on the case have not been taken lightly. The High Court has affirmed, however, that – at variance with how some commentators have reported matters – there is no general discretion by which the Home Secretary may call a halt at this stage to extradition proceedings.
The correct test – again as the court has clarified – is that the Home Secretary must call a halt if to extradite would breach a person’s human rights. If otherwise, extradition must take its course. That, after earnest consideration, was the conclusion at which the Home Secretary arrived on 26 November.
As you have learned, Mr McKinnon’s solicitors are now to mount a judicial challenge to this further decision. We note your point about the time limit for doing so. There is no customary three months period, as you appear to believe. The position as set out in rules of court (the Civil Procedure Rules), is that any judicial review must be lodged promptly and in any event within three must of the disputed decision. In the context and circumstances of this particular case which has already withstood all defence challenges and the very closest judicial scrutiny, the Home Secretary took the view that it was reasonable for any further judicial review to be lodged by 10 December. Mr McKinnon’s solicitors have intimated their ability to lodge by that date.
Bob Wood
Extradition Section
Dear Mr Wood
Thank you very much indeed for your reply to my recent emails to the Home Secretary.
Once again, I am somewhat dismayed by the content therein.
In particular, your repeated references to court decisions in Gary's case only serve to cast doubt upon the integrity of the legal process. This is because the judgements referred to do not appear to be consistent with the facts upon which they purport to be based. As you can imagine, I find this deeply worrying, hence my correspondence with your office.
As regards the Home Secretary's discretion to intervene to halt the extradition, I would be very grateful for your explanation for the discrepancy between the Home Secretary's view, and that of the Commons Select Committee, Liberty, and numerous very eminent barristers. I find it difficult to understand how a man with no legal training could possibly presume to dismiss the widely-held and publicly stated views of the country's top legal minds. It may help you in formulating your answer to know that I watched the Select Committee Hearing on 10th November with my own eyes, as well as being aware of Keith Vaz's recommendations to Alan Johnson arising therefrom.
As to Mr Johnson's view regarding the violation of Mr McKinnon's Human Rights, in particular Article 3 (though I understand Art.8 is pertinent also), I wonder if you could please explain to me exactly what this view is based on? It cannot be based on any consideration of the impact of Gary's Asperger's on the degree of suffering that extradition from his home country would entail. It cannot be based either on any appreciation of how Gary's mental state has been affected by the trauma inflicted upon him thus far. He is suicidal. I would be grateful if you could please detail exactly how much more ill and vulnerable Mr McKinnon would need to be before Mr Johnson would accept that this extradition is a violation of Article 3? As I have stated before, Mr Johnson's view on this point beggars belief, to the point where both his competence and his conscience are called into question. I am not asserting that his decision was taken lightly, merely requesting to know his reasoning. His conclusion is not supported by the premises, you see. It is illogical.
In relation to the time-limit for submitting an application for judicial review, my question was regarding Mr Johnson's reasons for not allowing the three months he is entitled to permit, and more specifically, for not allowing Mr McKinnon's solicitors reasonable time for submission. Aside from it seeming sadistic and unnecessary to insist on seven days, as Mr Johnson initially did, the legal implications of not permitting reasonable time meant that that decision was not defensible, which (among many other things) would appear once again to cast doubt upon Mr Johnson's competence as a decision-maker, and in matters of law.
I infer from your letter that Mr Johnson does not intend to halt the extradition at this time. If that is the case, I must respectfully repeat once again my suggestion that he consider his position as Home Secretary. Mr Johnson's actions are bringing his Office into disrepute. His persistence in lending his support to this malicious, legally dubious, and wholly unnecessary extradition, while appearing to mislead the House of Commons and the public as to the facts of the matter, would imply that he is not a man of good character, and is wholly unsuited for political office.
I look forward to your earliest reply, and continue to hope that Mr Johnson will see fit to halt the extradition.
With very best wishes
Yours sincerely
Ms *****
cc Alan Johnson Home Secretary, Karen Buck MP, Keith Vaz MP
(Interesting how the Home Office fail to address the point about Queen's Prerogative)
Wednesday 9 December 2009
Peaceful protest outside Home Office
The peaceful protest is now outside the Home Office on Tues 15th December at 12 noon. Janis suggested twitter users where a badge with twitter name on it...
Tuesday 8 December 2009
Email Labour in time for their meeting from Janis:
A message from Janis, Gary's mum, on twitter says that 'apparently there's a meeting on 16th Dec & support 4 Gary emailed to pip3.crimejustice@new.labour.org will help those that support Gary'
So please email to this address:
pip3.crimejustice@new.labour.org
Perhaps you could voice your concerns for Gary, the extradition treaty, abuse of anti-terrorist laws, your support for Labour MP's who are speaking out for Gary. It is only a matter of time before this happens again to someone else, and has already happened to others. 'The treaty is rotten to the core' as Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty has explained several times.
It would only take a sentence to possibly make a difference.
So please email to this address:
pip3.crimejustice@new.labour.org
Perhaps you could voice your concerns for Gary, the extradition treaty, abuse of anti-terrorist laws, your support for Labour MP's who are speaking out for Gary. It is only a matter of time before this happens again to someone else, and has already happened to others. 'The treaty is rotten to the core' as Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty has explained several times.
It would only take a sentence to possibly make a difference.
Monday 7 December 2009
Dear Alan Johnson
I have written to you before regarding the extradition of Gary McKinnon, and while I am grateful for your reply, I must say I was dismayed by the misleading and inaccurate quality of the information therein.
I am even more dismayed by your recent decision not to halt the extradition of Mr McKinnon, which I understand by all accounts bar your own is well within your discretion in this case.
I am shocked by the breathtaking contempt that you have shown for the Select Committee, for British justice, for the traditional British values of integrity, compassion and fair play, and for the welfare and human rights of Mr McKinnon and his family. Your insistence that Mr McKinnon's lawyers submit their application for Judicial Review within fourteen days instead of the customary three months is vindictive in the extreme and it beggars belief that a man whose self-confessed worst fear is something happening to his own child could deliberately choose to inflict this trauma on Gary McKinnon, a harmless and vulnerable son with a highly relevant disability.
I urge you once again to reconsider your decision and to halt this unnecessary extradition. The US response is grossly disproportionate to the crime that was committed, as any reasonable person can see.
I will not trouble to critique your response to questions in the House of Commons on Tuesday, except to say that it was disingenuous in the extreme the way you sought to manipulate the facts and mislead the House. No-one was fooled. No-one is fooled either by your oft-repeated remark that successive court judgements have not found in Gary's favour. This is no more evidence for the legitimacy of this extradition, than of a gross and highly disturbing lack of integrity at the highest levels throughout this case.
I believe you are able to tell right from wrong, and I believe that you know very well that what you are doing is wrong. What you are doing to Gary McKinnon is wrong, and what you are doing to public confidence in your Office is wrong. It is clear that any reasonable person, with any legal, medical, or computer expertise, or indeed with any common sense at all, would halt the extradition forthwith.
I therefore urge you once again, to please reconsider your decision, stop this cruel folly, and halt the extradition.
(This letter just came in from a tweeter)
I am even more dismayed by your recent decision not to halt the extradition of Mr McKinnon, which I understand by all accounts bar your own is well within your discretion in this case.
I am shocked by the breathtaking contempt that you have shown for the Select Committee, for British justice, for the traditional British values of integrity, compassion and fair play, and for the welfare and human rights of Mr McKinnon and his family. Your insistence that Mr McKinnon's lawyers submit their application for Judicial Review within fourteen days instead of the customary three months is vindictive in the extreme and it beggars belief that a man whose self-confessed worst fear is something happening to his own child could deliberately choose to inflict this trauma on Gary McKinnon, a harmless and vulnerable son with a highly relevant disability.
I urge you once again to reconsider your decision and to halt this unnecessary extradition. The US response is grossly disproportionate to the crime that was committed, as any reasonable person can see.
I will not trouble to critique your response to questions in the House of Commons on Tuesday, except to say that it was disingenuous in the extreme the way you sought to manipulate the facts and mislead the House. No-one was fooled. No-one is fooled either by your oft-repeated remark that successive court judgements have not found in Gary's favour. This is no more evidence for the legitimacy of this extradition, than of a gross and highly disturbing lack of integrity at the highest levels throughout this case.
I believe you are able to tell right from wrong, and I believe that you know very well that what you are doing is wrong. What you are doing to Gary McKinnon is wrong, and what you are doing to public confidence in your Office is wrong. It is clear that any reasonable person, with any legal, medical, or computer expertise, or indeed with any common sense at all, would halt the extradition forthwith.
I therefore urge you once again, to please reconsider your decision, stop this cruel folly, and halt the extradition.
(This letter just came in from a tweeter)
Give the Queen a bell:
Sunday 6 December 2009
Peaceful Protest outside Buckingham Palace for Gary: Tues 15th Dec 2009 12 - 2pm
Peaceful Protest for Gary on Tuesday 15th December, outside Buckingham Palace, at 12 - 2pm. Please come along and tell your friends and family.
American Ambassador
American Ambassador sceptical of Gary's late ASD diagnosis on Andrew Marr show today. Late diagnosis is not unusual. Diagnosis oftens happens when there is a crisis, when it becomes apparent, when it is no longer hidden. Some people with ASD get into serious trouble over and over again for all sorts of interests that have gone 'too far'.
Friday 4 December 2009
Jane Asher on Gary McKinnon, Autism & suicide
http://bit.ly/fLY6m
Jane Asher has been President of NAS (National Autistic Society) since 1997. A must read.
Jane Asher has been President of NAS (National Autistic Society) since 1997. A must read.
Thursday 3 December 2009
Ning
We are building this page on Ning, so between all the supporters around the world, we can keep things up to date and help if possible. Please join in, there is no set way of thinking, this is open to any discussion regarding helping Gary.
http://garymckinnon.ning.com
http://garymckinnon.ning.com
Song by Gary's mother:
From @dandelion101
Beautiful song by Gary's mother, @JanisSharp http://bit.ly/5BJBLO Have a listen + RT! We have the MP3, or get it from Janis here @JanisSharp, and please send to your local radio stations all over the world, thank you.
Beautiful song by Gary's mother, @JanisSharp http://bit.ly/5BJBLO Have a listen + RT! We have the MP3, or get it from Janis here @JanisSharp, and please send to your local radio stations all over the world, thank you.
Tweet from @Rugbyrose
@Rugbyrose: I suspect without people with Aspergers, technology and science wouldn't be where it is today. #freegary #GaryMckinnon
New Gary petition is doing really well, please sign:
This new Gary McKinnon petition by Kevin Healey, is doing really well, please sign, and pass on as far as you can, to all friends and family, thank you.
http://bit.ly/11WTgn
http://bit.ly/11WTgn
Wednesday 2 December 2009
Gary info on Twitter
www.twitter.com
Please check out each of these in 'search':
@freegary
@tweet4gary
#mckinnon
#freegary
#sackjohnson
#tweet4gary
#McKinnonMonday
#garymckinnon (Is #GaryMcKinnon the same hashtag ?)
Gary's mum is here @JanisSharp
Apparently #garymckinnon is the only hash tag to have trended, there by getting the word out to as many people as possible, and hopefully gaining more support. I think it makes sense being his name. But there is lots of information on the other hashtags too, so feel free to join in where you want to.
I would say to try to use #garymckinnon and #freegary to access as many supporters as possible.
News !! Due to urgency we are now using #SaveGary
Please check out each of these in 'search':
@freegary
@tweet4gary
#mckinnon
#freegary
#sackjohnson
#tweet4gary
#McKinnonMonday
#garymckinnon (Is #GaryMcKinnon the same hashtag ?)
Gary's mum is here @JanisSharp
Apparently #garymckinnon is the only hash tag to have trended, there by getting the word out to as many people as possible, and hopefully gaining more support. I think it makes sense being his name. But there is lots of information on the other hashtags too, so feel free to join in where you want to.
I would say to try to use #garymckinnon and #freegary to access as many supporters as possible.
News !! Due to urgency we are now using #SaveGary
Tuesday 1 December 2009
Nick Clegg’s Letter to US Attorney General
Gary McKinnon: Nick Clegg’s Letter to US Attorney General
30th November 2009
Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats yesterday wrote to The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States regarding this case of Gary McKinnon, see the full text of the letter below:
Sunday 29th November 2009
I am writing to urge you to halt the planned extradition to the US of British citizen Gary McKinnon. It is my strongly held view that Mr. McKinnon should be charged for his crimes in Britain, where he committed them.
As I’m sure you are aware, Mr. McKinnon suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome; a condition which makes him shy, obsessive and psychologically vulnerable. There is no dispute over the illegality of his actions, and Mr. McKinnon promptly confessed to his crimes when questioned by police. However, they were not the acts of an international cyber-terrorist. He is an amateur computer hacker without malicious intent and with no previous criminal history. There is now substantial evidence that his health is deteriorating and that the impact of extradition could make it significantly worse.
The British Government has insisted that it cannot intervene to halt extradition proceedings. I have been assured by various legal sources, including the Government’s chief terror adviser, Lord Carlile, that this is not the case. Despite being presented with new evidence about Mr. McKinnon’s risk of suicide, the Home Secretary has this week refused to halt the extradition on medical grounds. It is to the shame of the British administration that it now falls to your Government to act where they have failed.
I can only assume British Ministers have calculated inaction as their wisest course in terms of maintaining strong relations with your Government. The reality, however, is that extradition will only serve to sour the relationship between our two countries. The intended removal of this vulnerable young man has caused dismay among politicians, the popular press and public opinion at large. The case has also reignited controversy over the UK-US Extradition Treaty, which is widely perceived as imbalanced in terms of the standard of evidence required to seek extradition to the US.
I hope you will consider these arguments carefully. Rest assured that should Mr. McKinnon remain in Britain he will be tried to the highest standards of British justice.
I await your swift reply,
Nick Clegg MP
Leader of the Liberal Democrats
CC: His Excellency Louis B. Susman
30th November 2009
Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats yesterday wrote to The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States regarding this case of Gary McKinnon, see the full text of the letter below:
Sunday 29th November 2009
I am writing to urge you to halt the planned extradition to the US of British citizen Gary McKinnon. It is my strongly held view that Mr. McKinnon should be charged for his crimes in Britain, where he committed them.
As I’m sure you are aware, Mr. McKinnon suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome; a condition which makes him shy, obsessive and psychologically vulnerable. There is no dispute over the illegality of his actions, and Mr. McKinnon promptly confessed to his crimes when questioned by police. However, they were not the acts of an international cyber-terrorist. He is an amateur computer hacker without malicious intent and with no previous criminal history. There is now substantial evidence that his health is deteriorating and that the impact of extradition could make it significantly worse.
The British Government has insisted that it cannot intervene to halt extradition proceedings. I have been assured by various legal sources, including the Government’s chief terror adviser, Lord Carlile, that this is not the case. Despite being presented with new evidence about Mr. McKinnon’s risk of suicide, the Home Secretary has this week refused to halt the extradition on medical grounds. It is to the shame of the British administration that it now falls to your Government to act where they have failed.
I can only assume British Ministers have calculated inaction as their wisest course in terms of maintaining strong relations with your Government. The reality, however, is that extradition will only serve to sour the relationship between our two countries. The intended removal of this vulnerable young man has caused dismay among politicians, the popular press and public opinion at large. The case has also reignited controversy over the UK-US Extradition Treaty, which is widely perceived as imbalanced in terms of the standard of evidence required to seek extradition to the US.
I hope you will consider these arguments carefully. Rest assured that should Mr. McKinnon remain in Britain he will be tried to the highest standards of British justice.
I await your swift reply,
Nick Clegg MP
Leader of the Liberal Democrats
CC: His Excellency Louis B. Susman
Monday 30 November 2009
Free Gary
This just came in from a girl on twitter, she is going to post these up around tube stations etc in London.
FREE GARY
You may have heard about the case of Gary McKinnon, the UFO computer-hacker with Asperger’s Syndrome. Gary is being extradited to the USA with British Government backing, to face 60 years in a US jail, because he hacked into US government and military computers to search for UFOs.
The British Government have abandoned Gary to his fate, to appease the USA. Perhaps you too think that Gary should get what is coming to him. Perhaps you don’t know what Asperger’s Syndrome is, or perhaps you think that a peaceful, vulnerable, UFO computer-geek deserves to be treated like a terrorist by the country that brought us Guantanamo Bay and Abu-Ghraib?
But the fact is that Gary is no terrorist, and his actions were merely part of the eccentric and obssessional behaviour symptomatic of Asperger’s Syndrome. Bear in mind too that the computers Gary hacked into had no security in place, no passwords, no firewalls. A thirteen year old child could have done what Gary did. Because of his condition, Gary did not realise the seriousness of his actions. And because of his condition, to extradite him to the US to face a 60-year jail sentence, away from his support networks, and in a brutal and foreign environment would be inhumane, even if it were not grossly disproportionate to his crime.
Please support our campaign to persuade the British Government to stand up to America, and have Gary tried in the UK.
www.freegary.co.uk www.tweet4gary.co.uk
royalmail4gary.blogspot.com
Feel free to print this out and use it.
FREE GARY
You may have heard about the case of Gary McKinnon, the UFO computer-hacker with Asperger’s Syndrome. Gary is being extradited to the USA with British Government backing, to face 60 years in a US jail, because he hacked into US government and military computers to search for UFOs.
The British Government have abandoned Gary to his fate, to appease the USA. Perhaps you too think that Gary should get what is coming to him. Perhaps you don’t know what Asperger’s Syndrome is, or perhaps you think that a peaceful, vulnerable, UFO computer-geek deserves to be treated like a terrorist by the country that brought us Guantanamo Bay and Abu-Ghraib?
But the fact is that Gary is no terrorist, and his actions were merely part of the eccentric and obssessional behaviour symptomatic of Asperger’s Syndrome. Bear in mind too that the computers Gary hacked into had no security in place, no passwords, no firewalls. A thirteen year old child could have done what Gary did. Because of his condition, Gary did not realise the seriousness of his actions. And because of his condition, to extradite him to the US to face a 60-year jail sentence, away from his support networks, and in a brutal and foreign environment would be inhumane, even if it were not grossly disproportionate to his crime.
Please support our campaign to persuade the British Government to stand up to America, and have Gary tried in the UK.
www.freegary.co.uk www.tweet4gary.co.uk
royalmail4gary.blogspot.com
Feel free to print this out and use it.
List of MP's on twitter:
If you wanted to, you could tweet these MP"s to do their bit for Gary McKinnon:
@DowningStreet
@AdamAfriyie
@AdamPriceMP
@alisonseabeck
@AndrewGeorgeMP
@Andrew_GwynneMP
@AndrewRosindell
@AndySlaughterMP
@andyreedmp
@MorayMP
@annesnelgrovemp
@widdecombepp
@tonywrightmp
@BenBradshawMP
@CeliaBarlowMP
@ChrisBryantMP
@ChrisHuhne
@dannyalexander
@DariTaylorMP
@davidcairnsmp
@chaytord
@DavidDrewMP
@davidevennett
@davidjonesmp
@davidkidney
@DavidLammyMP
@DMiliband
@mundelld
@DavidWrightMP
@wyattd
@DianaJohnsonMP
@DouglasCarswell
@edballsmp
@EdMilibandMP
@edvaizey
@elliotmorley
@ericjoyce
@EricPickles
@frankfieldteam
@georgegalloway
@GillianMerron
@GiselaStuart
@grahamstuart
@grantshapps
@HarrietHarman
@HazelBlearsMP
@HywelWplaidcym
@iancawsey
@JamesPlaskittMP
@jimpurnell
@jimknightmp
@Johndenhammp
@JohnPrescott
@spellar
@JonCruddas
@joswinson
@jgoldsworthy
@KerryMP
@KevinBrennanMP
@lembitopik
@LiamByrneMP
@LindaGilroyMP
@Linda_Riordan
@lfeatherstone
@malcolmbruce
@margaretmoranmp
@markdurkan
@Mike_Fabricant
@MikeFosterMP
@mooremichaelk
@MikeGapes
@MikeOBrienMP
@NadineDorriesMP
@nick_clegg
@normanlamb
@ParmjitDhanda
@patmcfaddenmp
@paulclarkmp
@PaulRowen
@Petewishart
@philwillismp
@PhyllisStarkey
@robwilsonmp
@SadiqKhan
@SandraGidley
@smccarthyfry
@DewsburyMP
@sionsimon
@stevemccabemp
@stevewebb1
@SusanKramer
@jowellt
@thomasbrake
@TomHarrisMP
@tom_watson
@vincecable
Please let me know of any more, I found these on www.tweetminster.com
@DowningStreet
@AdamAfriyie
@AdamPriceMP
@alisonseabeck
@AndrewGeorgeMP
@Andrew_GwynneMP
@AndrewRosindell
@AndySlaughterMP
@andyreedmp
@MorayMP
@annesnelgrovemp
@widdecombepp
@tonywrightmp
@BenBradshawMP
@CeliaBarlowMP
@ChrisBryantMP
@ChrisHuhne
@dannyalexander
@DariTaylorMP
@davidcairnsmp
@chaytord
@DavidDrewMP
@davidevennett
@davidjonesmp
@davidkidney
@DavidLammyMP
@DMiliband
@mundelld
@DavidWrightMP
@wyattd
@DianaJohnsonMP
@DouglasCarswell
@edballsmp
@EdMilibandMP
@edvaizey
@elliotmorley
@ericjoyce
@EricPickles
@frankfieldteam
@georgegalloway
@GillianMerron
@GiselaStuart
@grahamstuart
@grantshapps
@HarrietHarman
@HazelBlearsMP
@HywelWplaidcym
@iancawsey
@JamesPlaskittMP
@jimpurnell
@jimknightmp
@Johndenhammp
@JohnPrescott
@spellar
@JonCruddas
@joswinson
@jgoldsworthy
@KerryMP
@KevinBrennanMP
@lembitopik
@LiamByrneMP
@LindaGilroyMP
@Linda_Riordan
@lfeatherstone
@malcolmbruce
@margaretmoranmp
@markdurkan
@Mike_Fabricant
@MikeFosterMP
@mooremichaelk
@MikeGapes
@MikeOBrienMP
@NadineDorriesMP
@nick_clegg
@normanlamb
@ParmjitDhanda
@patmcfaddenmp
@paulclarkmp
@PaulRowen
@Petewishart
@philwillismp
@PhyllisStarkey
@robwilsonmp
@SadiqKhan
@SandraGidley
@smccarthyfry
@DewsburyMP
@sionsimon
@stevemccabemp
@stevewebb1
@SusanKramer
@jowellt
@thomasbrake
@TomHarrisMP
@tom_watson
@vincecable
Please let me know of any more, I found these on www.tweetminster.com
Saturday 28 November 2009
More links etc:
'Gary' by Stella Vine
http://bit.ly/4Y1DOx National Autistic Society
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ Liberty
Save Gary on Facebook Nearly 800,000 supporters, please join.
http://freegaryus.blogspot.com/ 'Free Gary' US
http://bit.ly/X8ZQa Gary on 'Richard and Judy' last year before aspergers autism diagnosis.
http://bit.ly/McKinn Geoffrey Robertson QC in The Independent
http://bit.ly/6IZiJM Huffington Post
http://bit.ly/6TokZ
Telegraph and BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/... http://url4t.com/If0
http://bit.ly/11WTgn Online Petition
Thursday 26 November 2009
Write a letter to The Queen:
If you would like to write a letter to The Queen, her address is here:
Her Majesty The Queen, Buckingham Palace, London SW1A 1AA
Gary's mother Janis mentioned that there is such a thing as The Queens Prerogative, that she has to sign any treaty. There is quite a lot of info on the internet about the imbalance of the treaty, how other countries need evidence before they will allow their citizens to be extradited. We need our courts of law to be able to have discretion, so that in unusual situations, compassion towards the vulnerable is allowed.
Also this came in from a tweeter:
'The extradition treaty with the US was signed under Queens Prerogative - parliament didn't see the wording of the treaty until 3 months after it was signed. We now urge the government, or the monarch, to use Queen's Prerogative again at this desperate hour to prevent this unjust extradition and to protect a peaceful and fragile man. Gary should be tried in the UK, full stop'.
Her Majesty The Queen, Buckingham Palace, London SW1A 1AA
Gary's mother Janis mentioned that there is such a thing as The Queens Prerogative, that she has to sign any treaty. There is quite a lot of info on the internet about the imbalance of the treaty, how other countries need evidence before they will allow their citizens to be extradited. We need our courts of law to be able to have discretion, so that in unusual situations, compassion towards the vulnerable is allowed.
Also this came in from a tweeter:
'The extradition treaty with the US was signed under Queens Prerogative - parliament didn't see the wording of the treaty until 3 months after it was signed. We now urge the government, or the monarch, to use Queen's Prerogative again at this desperate hour to prevent this unjust extradition and to protect a peaceful and fragile man. Gary should be tried in the UK, full stop'.
Wednesday 25 November 2009
Shami and Portia
Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty: "A government can't tie its own hands and then protest its hands are tied"
'Justice in this country', as Portia explained in The Merchant of Venice, 'comes seasoned with mercy'.
'Justice in this country', as Portia explained in The Merchant of Venice, 'comes seasoned with mercy'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)