Asperger's Syndrome is characterized in part by obsessive and compulsive behavior and the failure of the sufferer to empathize with others' emotions, including distress. Much has been written about Gary McKinnon -- the UFO-fanatical British hacker who allegedly caused $500,000 worth of damage to Pentagon and NASA computer systems and caused a major breach of security -- and to his Asperger's. But you have to wonder whether he is the most acute case in this whole sorry tale.
Obsessive and compulsive behavior? An absence of empathy? It sounds like the British and American governments are the ones with the far more serious case of Asperger's than Mr McKinnon.
As the doctor who diagnosed him, Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, has said: "We should be thinking about this [the hacking] as the activity of somebody with a disability rather than a criminal activity."
Between the two of them, the British and US governments have got into a complete muddle. At the source of the issue, is the US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003. It was designed in the aftermath of 9/11 to increase the ability of each country to extradite those suspected of terrorism.
Now it is being used to extradite a frightened and disabled man to stand trial and face the prospect of more than sixty years of incarceration in a high security facility for a series of breaches of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
What Gary McKinnon did was absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He created security risks and damaged property. He should stand trial. But why insist that he does so in the US where removal from the social support structure vital for someone suffering from Asperger's Syndrome risks a complete mental breakdown?
The consequences for him personally are catastrophic. They will not be quite as severe for US-UK relations. However, the US should be under no illusions about the degree of anger that there is towards it as a result of insisting on this cruel extradition.
A major 'Free Gary' campaign is funneling public outrage and they are now campaigning for the Obama administration to withdraw the extradition request. The original aim was to get the British government to try the McKinnon case in the UK but following yesterday's decision by the High Court the chances of that happening are becoming more remote.
Rightly or wrongly, the British government feels hamstrung by the extradition treaty. It is playing a dangerous game, as public support for Gary McKinnon begins to explode in a situation reminiscent of the recent refusal -- and then u-turn -- of the government to grant British citizenship to Gurkha soldiers who fought for the British army. Lord Carlile, who is the independent reviewer of all UK anti-terrorism laws, recently described the possible extradition as "cruel." He has called for the Home Secretary to determine that Mr McKinnon be tried in the UK -- as he could be under the Computer Misuse Act of 1990.
The 'Free Gary' campaign is having an impact on the image of the United States in the UK and is gathering significant momentum. Forty Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum have written to President Obama asking for the extradition request to be withdrawn. The leaders of the two opposition parties, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, have lent their support to the campaign. The Prime Minister's wife, Sarah Brown, has expressed her personal sympathy for the mother of Gary McKinnon, Janis Sharp.
Newspapers from the full span of the political spectrum -- from the Guardian on the left to the Daily Mail on the right -- are behind the campaign. Stars of stage and screen are weighing in too. Pink Floyd's Dave Gilmour as well as Bob Geldof, and Chrissie Hynde, have released a track in support of Gary McKinnon to raise money for autism charities. Sting, Peter Gabriel and Trudie Styler have been vocal in their support. Liberty, the British equivalent of the American Civil Liberties Union, are full-square behind the campaign, describing Britain's extradition arrangements as a "disgrace."
Why should any of this concern the Obama administration? The election of Barack Obama reset popular opinion of the United States here as it has done elsewhere. Is it really worth undoing all that good work to try this disabled and desperate man? What will be gained?
In comments revealing his concept of law, President Obama described the qualities that he was looking for in a Supreme Court Justice on the occasion of the resignation of Justice David H. Souter:
"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives: whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."
"I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."
Surely, that compassion, that pragmatism and that understanding of the consequences of legal decisions as opposed to dry legalism are exactly what are required in the case of Gary McKinnon? Between them, surely the British government and the Obama administration can reverse this injustice? He would be tried here, but the Obama Administration must first reverse the extradition request so that everyone can save face. The fate of a highly irresponsible but suffering man is at stake. And so is how the UK views the Obama Administration and whether it is seen as truly different or more of the same.
Anthony Painter is author of Barack Obama: the movement for change and a columnist for LabourList. Follow Anthony on Twitter at twitter.com/anthonypainter
Follow LabourList on Twitter: www.twitter.com/labourlist
The damage is a requirement in order to bring an extraditable indictment (no damage no indictment) . The damage threshold is $5000 so coincidentally he caused $5000 damage on each machine. Plus the original indictment included six universities each with the nominal $5000 damage but when the same universities publicly denied any damage, they were dropped from the indictment.
This is an insult to people with Aspergers, who manage to live fairly normal lives and don't consider themselves to be debilitated.
i) I do not argue that Gary McKinnon would not receive a fair trial in the US. Just that it is unfair to try him in the US.
ii) The Natwest 3 is a completely different case- and one with which I had very little sympathy.
iii) I describe Asperger's as a disability on the basis that his highly renowned doctor does. Professor Simon Baron-Cohen said: "We should be thinking about this [the hacking] as the activity of somebody with a disability rather than a criminal activity."
Whether having Asperger's is to 'suffer' is a discussion that is entirely legitimate. I suspect that it is a discussion that would end up being rather semantic. I'm not wedded to the description but it seemed right- it doesn't change the argument ultimately and equally I'd be more than happy to use a different verb.
i) If you are happy that Gary McKinnon would receive a fair trial in the US then what's the problem with him standing trial there. The crime was committed against the US, they should be allowed to seek justice in their courts.
ii) The support for McKinnon centers on the belief that the extradition laws are unbalanced in favour of the US. The Natwest 3 used the same tactic (albeit with less public sympathy). If extradition laws are at fault then shouldn't you fight the extradition of any UK citizen. The Natwest 3 committed their crimes in Britain against a British bank, they could have been tried in Britain - why no sympathy?
iii) Baron-Cohen is a sympathetic voice in the field of AS and I understand that, along with other commentators, he is well-meaning. But as someone once said, "words mean stuff". In discussions on McKinnon, people have said things like, 'they can't help it', 'they can't control themselves', 'they don't know right from wrong' (well, I read those on Twitter - great source, no?!) and then you chime in with 'disabled...sufferer'
I only ask that you and other journalists be aware of the impact that such language has, not only on people with AS but also on employers, teachers, etc... The majority of people with AS are able to lead 'normal' lives. A society that is intolerant of difference can be disabling but we are not 'disabled'!
i) Because the consequences could be devastating for him. He can and should be tried in the UK.
ii) Support for Gary McKinnon is based on his personal situation. The extradition laws are a parallel discussion. They are relevant because of the way that the treaty and the legislation became entwined with his case.
The treaty is designed to allow for extradition without prima facie evidence. There was prima facie evidence in this case though there was clearly an advantage to waiting for the treaty to make any extradition easier to secure.
iii) Words do matter but I think you are being extremely unfair to pull me up for using the disability description and for comparing what I said with some of those comments on Twitter (which actually misunderstand Asperger's). Take this statement from the UK's National Autistic Society:
"People with Asperger syndrome may be particularly vulnerable .... and may be susceptible to additional mental health problems as a result of their disability."
The NAS is comfortable with the 'disability' description.
An honest discussion of what Asperger's is and what it means is in the vital interests of anyone with the condition, their families and all of us quite frankly. We need a proper understanding to prevent many becoming isolated and alienated. If we turn it into a semantic discussion which instantly gets stuck in a debate about whether Asperger's is a disability or not then aren't we missing an important opportunity?