Prisoners and the Vote - No Change required!

The BBC's Nick Robinson published an article earlier this morning (0515 20 Jan 2011) with the title: Ministers in climbdown over prisoner vote rights in which he writes that the government is preparing to scale back plans to give the right to vote to thousands of prisoners serving sentences of under four years. They now propose to limit the right to those sentenced to a year or less.

But this misses the point, Belgium and Eire, and indeed 11 other countries who signed the 1953 European Convention on Human Rights do NOT allow Prisoners the vote. Yet they are not being singled out by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Belgium goes further and can deny the vote to Prisoners even after they are released.

So why has Britain been singled out? Because the ban is automatic rather than part of the sentencing procedure. So just change the law, so that every year handed down as a sentence is given the same number of years voting ban (this to remain in force even if paroled, or early release).

However better still face down the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and MPs will have the opportunity to defy the court's ruling in a couple of weeks' time when the Commons debates a motion tabled by Conservative David Davis and Labour's Jack Straw (I for one will be watching how the MP for my constituency votes on this).

Actually I would much rather the vote was on withdrawing completely from the 1953 Convention and instead preparing over the next few years a British bill of Human Rights which is based on the safety of citizens and the protection of victims of crime rather than the rights of those whose Criminal or other acts endanger the Citizens of this Country.

Related Post in this blog:
EU Law overrides UK Law and (some) Convicts will get the Vote 02nd November 2010
Douglas Carswell MP: Governed by judges? 05th November 2010

Other Articles:

• Tory rebels given green light to crush prison votes
• Far fewer prisoners will now get the right to vote
• Votes for (some) prisoners to get a vote in Parliament

EU Law overrides UK Law and (some) Convicts will get the Vote

First a statement of my view on this: Convicts should NOT get the Vote!

Sadly as a British Citizen I do NOT have the right to Vote on this issue, my Elected Representative does NOT have the right to try and get this ruling over turned, 'the extremely disappointed' Theresa May as Home Secretary can do nothing (which is actually no surprise, but on this occasion not her fault), the Prime Minister has tried, but doesn't have the power to change this European Court of Human Rights Ruling.

So we in Britain have no say on this! This is the unacceptable face of EU Power via the European Court of Human Rights to force Member Countries to accept Laws they don't want. Although I disagree with the ruling (even if passed by UK Parliament), my real irritation, nay anger is that this has been imposed over our Sovereign Rights as a Nation.

For a more objective view on this (rather than my rant) see:
BBC: Convicted prisoners to get vote after European ruling

The United Kingdom Extradition Review

I welcome the Independent Extradition Review which in particular will put the current US-UK Extradition Treaty of 2003, the European Arrest Warrant and the more general EU Extradition arrangements under the Microscope, but will also cover Extradition Treaties with other Jurisdictions.

Starting off with the US-UK Extradition Treaty, which despite US Assertions that it fair, is probably one the most unbalanced negotiated by Britain in recent times, even the then Home Secretary David Blunkett (merely one of a long line of pretty useless Home Office Ministers) now admits he may have 'given too much to the Americans', NOT just an understatement, but 7 years late and an indication that David Blunkett should never have been Home Secretary (or indeed a Minister of the Crown in any capacity).

The trigger for putting the US-UK Treaty as a major element of the review appears to be the case of Gary McKinnon, who as far as I am concerned is one case where the Treaty has a value
(See: Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty Posted 1st August 2009). But this Blog has been highlighting what I see as the failings of this treaty since 2006. See:

• UK-US Extradition Treaty and Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists 13th August 2006.
• The Natwest Three 29th 29th November 2007
• The Murder of Captain Nairac - Two Suspects still Safe in the USA 23rd May 2008
  
• Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty 01st August 2008
• The Extradite Gary McKinnon Saga Continues 28th November 2009

Moving on to the European Arrest Warrant; when this became law, I saw this in general as a good thing and conceptually I still do. But the reality has shown that it is open to being abuse and that it needs urgent reform. Part of the problem is this is an EU Law and therefore allows the Home Secretary, or their equivalent in other EU Countries, no 'wriggle room' to deal with Warrants that fall outside what is compatible with UK Law.

Whilst it is right that European Arrest Warrant is put under the Microscope, it is actually only part of a wider problem and this is the all encompassing EU Human Rights Legislation. Once again a pan-European Bill of Human rights is conceptually a good idea, but it terms and conditions are so aimed at the rights of the individual, they ignore the rights of society and indeed the rights of states to try Defendants according to their laws. See: Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him! This treaty does not need to be reviewed, Britain should withdraw from it immediately and replace it with a properly constructed UK Bill of Human Rights where the rights of the Individual and the rights of Society are balanced (Unfortunately my distrust of British Politicians has reached the point that I doubt they could actually construct such a bill).

The two threads of this post so far came together in the case of the extradition to the US on terror charges of radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and three other men, which I covered in this post: How Dare the EU Block Abu Hamza US extradition on the 10th July 2010.

Even just reviewing the US-UK Extradition Treaty and the European Arrest Warrant would require considerable time, regardless of how qualified the Review Team might be. Adding in (quite rightly) other Extradition treaties and Arrangements means that the current Home Secretary's statement that this review will not report for a year is reasonable. But this statement is in itself unsatisfactory, as it doesn't address what needs to be done in the interim. My view is that the United Kingdom should suspend both the US-UK Treaty and the European Arrest Warrant and go further and withdraw Britain's acceptance of the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights until further notice.

With any decent Home Secretary this would actually resolve some issues with the USA as both Gary Mckinnon and Abu Hamza (and his associates) would be extradited anyway. But instead we have the permanently disappointed Theresa May (If only Dr John Reid had felt able to stay as Home Secretary, we would have at least a Home Office fit for purpose even if the current Home Secretary wasn't). Of course with the 'beloved Theresa' in charge nothing will happen!

How Dare the EU Block Abu Hamza US extradition

The European Court of Human Rights has ordered a halt to the extradition to the US on terror charges of radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and three other men.

Excuse Me...Whilst I loathe the 2003 Extradition Treaty between the USA and UK because of its imbalance, this Treaty was entered into by the Elected Government of the Sovereign United Kingdom. I don't remember voting, for, or against this law being subordinate to bunch of European Judges.

Abu Hamza, jailed in the UK for soliciting to murder and racial hatred, and three other British men complained about the length of sentence they may face if convicted in the US. Their cases will be delayed for further submissions to the Strasbourg court. Meanwhile the men will remain in Custody in the UK.

Once again the 2003 Extradition Treaty is actually being used for the purpose the British thought it was supposed to serve.

The US is seeking to extradite Abu Hamza, the former head of Finsbury Park mosque in north London, since 2004, saying that he had attempted to set up a terrorism training camp in Oregon. The three other men facing extradition are Babar Ahmad, Syed Ahsan and Haroon Rashid Aswat. Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan were allegedly involved in raising funds for extremists. Mr Aswat is accused in relation to the alleged terror camp.

In all these cases the request is reasonable as these men will have their 'Day in a US Court'. But despite the fact they have not even faced trial in the USA, the EU Judges feel that these men have a reasonable argument in that:
They face a very long sentence in a "supermax" prison in Colorado and these very long sentences and the conditions of the prison, ADX Florence, would breach their human rights.

So everthing is being delayed whilst these Legal Eagles see more detailed arguments on
the prison conditions and the effect of the length of sentences. The UK government must submit further arguments to the court by 2 September about why it should be allowed to extradite the four. Sorry No - Two British courts have already approved the extraditions and that is that - The EU Court should keep out of this.

Now I might have a smidgen of sympathy if they were going to serve their sentence in Ikeja Jail, Nigeria, or were going to enjoy the pleasure of serving time in an Algerian Prison (but then again probably not).

But my real ire is that the British Government is being told what to do by a group of Judges who obviously live in a world completely Separate from the real one and more concerned with the rights of those, who given the chance would impose laws that would trample over everyone's Human Rights!

Our 'beloved' Home Secretary Theresa May said: ""We note that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that all the applications are partly admissible. We await the court's
judgement on the case. In the meantime these individuals will remain in custody."
Gosh Theresa you are a real wimp aren't you. Tell them we will extradite and that is that!

Treaties can be torn up, and it is time the EU Human Rights Treaty was!
However the 2003 Extradition Treaty also needs to be urgently renegotiated, but that has been covered several times in the blog!

Abid Naseer - Extradite Him - Part 1

Back in May Abid Naseer won his appeal against deportation from the UK back to Pakistan despite the Judge noting that he: "posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom". But despite this, he was NOT deported because of Human Rights Issues (See: Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him!).

However it appears that this Terrorist is not just a threat to the United Kingdom, but has also been involved in Plots against the United States and therefore the US Justice Department issued a Warrant for his arrest in relation to the failed plot to bomb the New York subway and requested his extradition under the 2003 Treaty US-UK Treaty (Nice to see it being used properly).

So Abid Naseer was arrested and taken to London for a late night court appearance on the 7th July and remanded in Custody until 14 July to allow Mr Naseer to consult lawyers over a possible bail application. The actual Extradition hearing will not take place until 8 September, when a judge will decide if Mr Naseer, 24, can be extradited. After this Home Secretary Theresa May will have the final say.

My views are naively simple:

1. He should have been deported back in May, his Human Rights are much less  important than the Human Rights of United Kingdom Citizens
2. Whilst I loathe the 2003 US-UK Treaty on Extradition for is imbalance, on this occasion it is being used for the correct purpose and he should be extradited by this Weekend, not dragging the process out to September.

I have a feeling this might 'run and run' hence Part 1 in the title:

External Links:
BBC: Terror suspect Abid Naseer held on US warrant
Independent: Terror suspect Abid Naseer arrested over US warrant
Telegraph: Terror Suspect Who Couldnt be Deported is Arrested.

Internal Links:
Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him!
May 2010

UK-US Extradition Treaty & Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists
August 2006

The Extradite Gary McKinnon Saga Continues

My views on the Gary McKinnon Case and the Extradition Treaty were detailed on the 01st August 2009 in this post.
Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty
Even the Home Secretary after reversing his decision to not to review the case (U-Turns being one of the few things British Ministers seem good at), has found that there are NO valid reasons to stop the extradition.

As a reminder on what this is all about:
Gary McKinnon hacked into 97 Computers belonging to:
United States Defense Department, US Navy, US Army, US Air Force, and NASA in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks. In the process of causing (by latest figures) $700,000USD of Damage, and stole 1,000 passwords from high-security computer networks.

He has admitted he did indeed commit these crimes, but only because he was looking for information on U.F.O.’s. Hmm, if this was indeed his only agenda, why did he leave the following message on one of the Pentagon computers he hacked:
“U.S. foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism. I will continue to disrupt at the highest possible level.”

The Lawyers acting for the US in the Extradition Case have described Mr McKinnon as:
The most prolific and damaging computer hacker in the history of the United States military.
Well I would change the wording to:
The most prolific and damaging, non-state supported computer hacker in the history of the United States military, that has been caught so far.
But then these are only Lawyers and what do they know about Cyber-Espionage being carried out against all Western Countries Military and Industry.
But despite this caveat, the crimes committed mean Gary McKinnon was carrying out acts of Cyber-Terrorism against the USA.

But hold on, a Professor watching a Television Interview  being given by McKinnon after extradition proceedings had started, began to suspect that he was suffering from Asperger syndrome, and subsequently he was indeed diagnosed as a sufferer of this disorder in August 2008 (three years into the Extradition proceedings). Asperger Syndrome is viewed as being within the Autism Spectrum of Disorders and is the cause of much discussion amongst researchers and indeed sufferers whether it is a difference (i.e within the spectrum of normal behaviour), rather than a disability that must be treated or cured.

As covered in my earlier post, Gary McKinnon does seem to fit some of the Asperger Profile, but surely this should have been diagnosed in Childhood when the symptoms are more pronounced rather than in his early 40's. Also within Asperger, like any of the disorders within the Autism Spectrum, there are huge variations between individuals.
If Asperger's is a valid defence, then there is no reason why this would not be considered as valid in a US Court as in a UK one?
Alternatively now that it is known that in Gary McKinnon case Asperger's is so serious that his obsessive behaviour meant that he went out and attacked the systems of a British Ally, then why hasn't he been sectioned under the Mental Health Acts and currently in a secure facility and (as there is nor real treatment) confined there for the rest of his life?

A lot of People from the British Autism Society to a bunch of Cross-party MP's and 'Celebrities' have jumped on the Save Gary McKinnon bandwagon. At least in the case of the British Autism Society, I have some sympathy with their stance as for the rest, well..

The only Person for whom I have both sympathy and respect in this case is Gary McKinnon's Mother, Janis Sharp who has mounted one of the most impressive campaigns in support of her son that I have ever known. Having said that, I believe her campaign should fail and that Gary McKinnon's case be heard in an American Court on the eight counts of computer fraud, that the extradition request is connected with.

But this does NOT in any way change my views on the 2003 Extradition Treaty. It is one of a small number of issues where I agree with Shami Chakrabarti (I respect and admire the Lady, just don't often agree with her) that this Extradition Law is in need of urgent reform. I would go further, in the next parliament the Treaty should be revoked and whilst renegotiated replaced by Extradition on a case by case basis.
See:UK-US Extradition Treaty and Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists Posted on 13th August 2006 .
After all one of the reasons it is so imbalanced is the concern that members of the IRA living in the US would not be given a fair trail if extradited to Britain and one of the concerns of the British Supporters of Gary Mckinnon is that he won't get a fair trial in the USA, I trust US Justice the same as I trust British Justice, I view both with considerable reservations, but they both attempt to give defendants a fair trial - My Objection to the NatWest Three being extradited, was their case clearly fell within British Jurisdiction and due the intense anger over Enron, there was a possibility of trial bias. But the reason that I support Gary McKinnon's Extradition is treaty, or not, this case falls within US Jurisdiction and there is NOT the same US Domestic angst.

Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty

The Idle Man has followed the Gary McKinnon Hacker Case with some interest, but with little sympathy for Mr McKinnon. After all he is not being accused of some minor misdemeanour, but of hacking into the computer systems of the United States Army, Navy and Air Force, plus the United States Department of Defence and NASA, as well as sabotaging vital American military systems after the terror attacks of September 11 2001. In addition McKinnon is alleged to have caused Criminal Damage by his actions, which have been calculated to total $750,000 USD for remedial action and repair. Any Government would, based on these allegations go to any lengths for extradition and subsequent prosecution.

In the UK a large number of high profile people and much of the media are stating that the current extradition treaty should NOT apply in this case as it was designed to counter terrorism. From the viewpoint of any Government, the allegations against Gary McKinnon are effectively charges of Terrorism, although prefixed with cyber. But make no mistake Cyber Terrorism may not have the instant, spectacular media impact of a Bomb Attack but if it is successful, it can easily be just as dangerous to society.

Apparently Mr McKinnon has been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome which even the medical profession cannot spell consistently and whilst McKinnon appears to in part fit the Asperger profile, in other areas it appears from the background to the case he does not (social interaction does not appear to have been impaired and he has even been part of the Hackers Panel at InfoSecurity Europe). What makes Asperger syndrome even more interesting is that there is now discussion as to whether this is a disability that must be treated, or a just a 'difference' that falls with the spectrum of normal Human behaviour. So using the Asperger defence always seemed more than a little disingenuous.

So as far as I am concerned the McKinnon Allegations do fall within the original purpose and spirit of the Extradition Treaty and whilst my view counts for nothing, it has been supported in Law up to and including the Law Lords and the European Court of Human Rights, which have rejected his appeal against extradition.

What I find ironic is that this fast-track Treaty has occupied the Legal Profession for three years! When for once it was actually being used for the purpose for which, at least the British thought it was designed. Of course because of the implicit imbalance to the treaty, if an American Hacker had done the same to the MoD, MI5, or SIS Systems, Britain would NOT under the treaty have able to extradite them.

Now the obstacles to Gary McKinnon being extradited, there will be a jury trial under the American Justice System. So Gary McKinnon will have his 'day in court'(although I suspect this will actually be weeks in Court). There are four possible outcomes:

1. He will be found guilty of all charges and if this is the case a very long sentence is appropriate.
2. He will be found guilty of some of the charges and if is the case the sentence should appropriate to those he is found guilty of.
3. His Lawyers will successfully use the Asperger defence, but hopefully this will still mean he will be institutionalised for a period for assessment to ensure he is not going to repeat his actions.
4. He is found not guilty of all charges - Extremely Unlikely!
   

Whilst I have every sympathy with McKinnon's Mother attempts to stop her son being extradited (and indeed have much more sympathy for her tireless efforts than I have for her Son), I find it embarrassing and distasteful that 40 British Members of Parliament have, after the Legal Processes have been exhausted have jumped on the McKinnon bandwagon by writing to the US President. Their protest is NOT about whether after a Trial he is found guilty and the punishment is too harsh, but the fact that he should NOT stand trial at all. If these allegations are true and this man attacked an ally and compromised their national security then it is only right that the USA should have the right to try him for these Crimes. True he is being extradited under a flawed and imbalanced treaty, but these MPs efforts would be better served by NOT using the case for self-serving publicity, but working hard to get the provisions of the Treaty fixed, so that there is no imbalance and it limited to the purposes that the British Government believed it would be applied! In the case of McKinnon, the treaty (flawed though it is) has been correctly applied.

The Idle Man, is as so often the case, is apparently out of step with Media and Political Opinion (what the general public thinks, matters not one jot - After all the e-Petition to the Prime Minister to stop the extradition, only managed to obtain 876 Signatures before it closed, not exactly an outpouring of support). So be it, but I consider what Gary McKinnon is alleged to have done, constitutes extremely serious crimes against an ally of this country and he should stand trial for those crimes in the country against which he launched his attacks, But that does not in any way alter my view that the current extradition treaty should be suspended until the provisions of the treaty between UK and USA apply equally to both Countries. This should not stop the Gary McKinnon Extradition because the Legal Processes were finally taken to the European Court of Human Rights and the extradition was upheld (quite rightly).

In the interests of Balance here are three of External Websites that show support for Gary McKinnon's attempts to avoid Extradition and Trial in the USA:
Free Gary McKinnon - or at least give him a fair trial in the United Kingdom - Blog
Daily Mail Articles in Support of Gary McKinnon
London TV Net

About that Extradition Treaty:
Posts in this Blog:
UK-US Extradition Treaty and Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists - 13th August 2003
The NatWest Three - 29th November 2007

External Sites:
Extradition Act of 2003 - The UK Statute Law Database
The Extradition Act 2003 - Wikipedia Entry
StateWatch News Online – Special Report on the ‘New US_UK Extradition Treaty - 2003
MPs Impotently Huffing and Puffing in Parliament - Hansard via They Work for You - 15th July 2009

News Update:
Alan Johnson: I can’t stop extradition - Times Online 2nd August 2009:
In this article the Home Secretary states he cannot stop the extradition as he would be breaking the Law. However once again Gary McKinnon is described as young (he is 43, which means he should be described as of middle age), Vulnerable (so vulnerable he can sit on the InfoSecurity Hackers panel and give a number of media interviews) and Misguided (He certainly is, he got so overconfident whilst hacking into US Defence Computers and those of NASA that he misguidedly got careless and therefore got caught).

I would rather the Home Secretary concentrated on making his Department 'fit for purpose' and ensuring that illegals are deported, dangerous prisoners stay in jail and sorting out the totally mismanaged National ID Card Scheme, than writing articles for the Sunday Times.

The Natwest Three

David Bermingham, Giles Darby and Gary Mulgrew, the three British former executives of NatWest (now part of Royal Bank of Scotland) who were controversially extradited to the USA to each face seven counts of fraud and who have consistently protested they are innocent, were lying.

On Wednesday the 28th November they pleaded guilty to a single wire fraud charge each in an Enron-related case as part of a deal with U.S. prosecutors.
Initially I was personally disappointed that they were only sentenced to 37 Months in Jail (with no appeal)..
However I am pleased to find that as part of the plea bargain they are going to have to repay $7.35 Million to the RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) which was their 'share' of the $19 Million Fraud carried out against their Employers.

One hopes that the British Authorities now:

• Ensure that once they are released these men are never allowed to work in any part of the Banking and Financial Sectors again.
• Investigate to ascertain if they have carried out other frauds.
• If such frauds are discovered seize their British Assets to the same value.

Although I still believe they treaty under which they were extradited to the USA needs to be revoked and renegotiated - See:
UK-US Extradition Treaty and Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists (13th August 2006), I am pleased that although they didn't get the 'extremely' heavy sentences i feel they deserve, at least they are going to have to repay the profit from their crime.


Other Related Posts In this Blog:
Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty
- 01st August 2009