I don`t think its so much the hacking as the extradition. We seem willing to send our nationals to the USA for incarceration but is the reverse true? A bit like Russia being unwilling to allow murder suspects to be tried here. We should ensure the `special relationship` works both ways.
Anyway the `offence` was committed in the UK not in the USA. This is one of the joys of the internet. Similar to `knowing` where `foul` material is uploaded but only prosecuting those who view it in the UK.
I suppose that until the UN has some sort of international police force that can detain, and have tried, perpetrators, anywhere in the world, for internet related crime this is an argument that will continue ad nauseum.
In logic you have to be present at the scene of a crime to commit it. Electronic presence is not physical therefore the act could only have been carried out in the UK.
Similarly the posting of your hypothetical bomb takes place in the UK. Under UK law it is an offence to post such physical material. If it arrived at the other end it is possible any physical damage caused would be an offence but if nothing physical occurred where is the offence?
You should not confuse the tangible fact of material with the intangible of the electronic.
"In logic you have to be present at the scene of a crime to commit it."
Not so, I'm afraid, and this man is indeed accused of committing offences in America - 97 of them in fact. fourm member is absolutely correct, offences that are committed electronically are offences, regardless of the location of the person who commits them. Electronic offences that are initiated from halfway across the planet are as real as if they were committed by someone 100 yards down the road. If I am a Chinese national and I use my HongKong computer to steal money from your UK bank account I'm guilty of a crime under UK law, and subject to arrest and charge by UK Police, provided the Chinese authorities are prepared to allow extradition.