The Pentagon is pissed that a foreign civilian could crack expensive military grade computer systems at a time of national emergency and Mr McKinnon is pissed because he thought these systems were an inviting open door and that the long arm of the American military would not reach out to grab him.

The issue of the extended arm is central because the military asked the US courts in a number of states to issue arrest warrants compliant with the 4th amendment in terms of search and seizure on probable cause. However, the legality of this may be subjective.

Presumably the Pentagon wants the trial to take place on US soil to test interpretation of the 4th amendment and other laws in that McKinnon’s ‘long arms’ caused criminal damage in the US when his forearms rested on a desktop in the UK. This is central to their ongoing efforts to counter what they regard as cyber terrorism.

In the UK Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Mr Justice Wilkie released a 41-page ruling, which concluded that extradition was “a lawful and proportionate response to his offending”. I’m fairly sure the Justice’s did not take into account their own interpretation of the US 4th amendment because they concerned themselves entirely with interpreting British law.

A successful application was made to a magistrate’s court for the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit to perform a search and seizure when no British notified crime had been committed on British soil but there had been notification of a US crime.

If neither the Justices nor the Magistrate were presented with evidence then what has happened here is what caused the US to create the 4th amendment in the first place. As for the UK, George III and Lord North it would seem are alive and kicking.

Simple really, two armies at war with each other.

Ref: 4th Amendment; Search and Seizure; History and Scope
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/01.html#2

Did the agreement to such a treaty have to go through both houses? Or was it just signed off by the Secretary of State of the day? I’ve more faith in the Lords than to believe they would let this sort of rubbish pass through.

Kyle Mulholland: The law lords are not responsible for the extradition treaty. They can only apply the law as it stands. Treaty ratification is a prerogative power. The Government thus constitutes the body responsible, not the courts.