US outrage at ‘de
‘To avoid being extradited a suspect need only threaten to kill himself’
THe decision to block Gary McKinnon’s extradition to the US sparked anger across the Atlantic.
Louis Susman, the American Ambassador in London, was left fuming when he learned of Theresa May’s dramatic halting of Gary’s removal shortly before she rose to deliver her statement to the Commons yesterday lunchtime.
Critics drew pointed comparisons between the McKinnon case and that of hate preacher Abu Hamza, who was recently flown to the US from Britain on terrorism charges following a long-running extradition battle.
Mrs May supported Hamza’s removal and the US administration had been convinced that she would approve the computer hacker’s extradition.
Last night, the US State Department said the American government was examining the decision.
A spokesman said it was ‘disappointed by the decision to deny Gary McKinnon’s extradition to face long overdue justice in the United States’.
And lawyer David Rivkin, former White House counsel to President Reagan and the first President Bush, said the move would go down ‘very badly’.
He said: ‘It’s really deplorable. The justification by the Home Secretary is laughable.
‘You have an individual who says he is going to commit suicide – American prisons and penal institutions have an excellent track record of stopping people who are trying to commit suicide.
‘Under this logic, all a person needs to say to not get extradited is, “I’m going to kill myself”. That’s not a serious argument. Under that argument, why do you even arrest anybody?
‘I would say it’s quite preposterous from an individual that’s clearly mentally capable of standing trial. I can assure you that if Mr McKinnon was brought to New York or any other place in the US and was out in condition of confinement he would not succeed in killing himself. I heard the same argument about Mr Abu Hamza.’
The Washington Post claimed the British decision to oppose extradition ‘could ignite tensions in an otherwise close transatlantic relationship’.
And Douglas McNabb, a lawyer who specialises in US federal law and international extradition, said the U.S. Attorney’s Office would be ‘livid’.
He added: ‘They take a very aggressive approach and they have been attempting to secure Mr McKinnon’s body for close to ten years next month, so they are not going to be happy at all.’
Legal experts predicted the U.S Attorney General’s office would issue an Interpol red notice against Mr McKinnon – meaning he will be arrested if he ever sets foot out of the UK.
This is unlikely to have a practical impact on the hacker, whose condition leaves him unwilling to travel long distances or board a plane. He has not left the UK for more than a decade.
However, it would deliver a clear signal at the U. S. authorities’ unhappiness. Over the last decade, they have shown an unwavering determination to put Mr McKinnon on trial in America.
Repeated private requests from British politicians for him to be prosecuted in the UK instead have been rebuffed. The view taken by a succession of Labour figures was that Mr McKinnon’s ordeal could be halted only with the approval of the US.
That led to widespread surprise when Mrs May decided to act unilaterally to free him from his misery. The US authorities are also understood to be unhappy over her decision to implement the ‘forum bar’ – which makes it more likely a suspect will be tried in Britain rather than sent abroad. The U.S embassy launched a ferocious lobbying campaign at Westminster urging MPs to reject the idea, which was ultimately supported by a unanimous vote in December last year.
The American authorities cannot block the introduction of ‘forum’,
which requires only the approval of the UK Parliament.
Any changes to the extradition treaty itself, enshrined into British law by the extradition Act 2003, would have required negotiation with the US – which insists it is perfectly fair.