Mr McKinnon’s actions seem to be far removed from any terrorist motives and it seems extremely harsh to deport him to the USA where he could receive a heavy sentence.

Maybe it’s fortunate that it was Mr McKinnon, with it seems benign motives, broke into secure defence systems.

It will have given the US authorities the chance to review their systems.

I can’t think of a better recent example of the risks of giving the state more and more power.

Labour has always made the case that they looked out for the poor and vulnerable in society.
I’m appalled and surprised that so few Labour MP’s voted with the opposition.

However I read that both sides ratified the treaty in April 2007:

http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/UKUS-extradition-traety

and I also read there that the previous arrangements were considered lop-sided in the opposite direction:

“The treaty, and the Extradition Act 2003, have also redressed the unequal balance that existed under the terms of the 1972 Treaty in which the UK required more from the US than they asked of the UK. The US was required to demonstrate a prima facie evidential case in support of extradition requests made to the UK, whereas the UK merely had to demonstrate ‘probable cause’.

The ‘probable cause’ test is broadly comparable to the requirement for ‘information which would justify the issue of a warrant for the arrest of a person’ that the UK will now require of the US.”

In fact I don’t think that change would affect this case, as the accused person openly admits that he committed some of the alleged offences.

However it would certainly have affected the Lotfi Raissi case – under the new fast-track system he would have been flown off the Guantanamo in short order, without the US authorities being required to produce any prima facie evidence of his guilt in a British court:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7244478.stm

“He spent four-and-a-half months at the high security Belmarsh prison in south-east London before being freed on bail by a district judge who ruled there was “no evidence” to suggest he was linked to terrorism. The US extradition request was formally dropped in April 2002.”

The same Extradition Act 2003 also authorised fast-track extradition to other EU countries under the EU Arrest Warrant, once again without any need for the foreign authorities to produce prima facie evidence of guilt in a British court.

Liberty is now campaigning against summary extradition to any foreign jurisdiction:

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/01-05-09-liberty-condemn-high-court-extradition-decision.shtml

while the last I heard the German constitutional court was still refusing to allow the EU Arrest Warrant to apply to Germany:

http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/press/bvg05-064en.html

“European Arrest Warrant Act void”

“According to the Court, the Act encroaches upon the freedom from extradition (Article 16.2 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG)) in a disproportionate manner … “

Many want to appear to be supporting, rather than really believe in what they say and do.

Hence the reason why Whips have so much control over voting.
Some MP’s are happy just to follow (cardboard cut outs) rather than think independently for themselves and for their constituants.

PS the one sided extradition treaty with the US and the double sided extradition arrangements within the EU are quite simply an outrage.