Poor Gary Mckinnon

[murnut]

Originally Posted by nomadrush

Under US law each indictment carries a possible sentence of 10 years and there are as I understand it seven charges. These will not run concurrently under US law, but back to back. So my understanding is a possible sentence of 70 years!!!

If Gary is extradited and sentenced, it will set a very dangerous precedent for all British citizens who can then be shipped out whenever Uncle Sam demands.

In the UK, a British citizen is "innocent until proven guilty" and that does not appear to be happening here!

Ross Hemsworth
http://www.nowthatsweird.co.uk
English and Proud of it!

20. If, however, the appellant chose not to cooperate, and were then extradited and convicted, he might expect to receive a sentence of 8-10 years, possibly longer, and would not be repatriated to the UK for any part of it. He would accordingly serve the whole sentence in a US prison (possibly high security) with at best some 15% remission.

Gary has not had a trial yet on the US charges., the trial occurs , and evidence is presented.

The extradition trial has occurred, and Gary lost .

[nomadrush]

Originally Posted by murnut

20. If, however, the appellant chose not to cooperate, and were then extradited and convicted, he might expect to receive a sentence of 8-10 years, possibly longer, and would not be repatriated to the UK for any part of it. He would accordingly serve the whole sentence in a US prison (possibly high security) with at best some 15% remission.

Gary has not had a trial yet on the US charges., the trial occurs , and evidence is presented.

The extradition trial has occurred, and Gary lost .

The Law Lords got this wrong as they took this to mean the indictments would if found guilty, run concurrently. This has been a well-publicised balls-up by the Lords.

The trial has NOT taken place, we have only heard the presentations as to why Gary should not be extradited.

In my opinion, there has been a major cover-up here, no real press attention and no-one daring to stand-up up to the Americans and saying NO you can't have him ,he will be tried here!

It makes me wonder if amongst the stuff Gary allegedly downloaded, there may be some evidence so damaging, that the US do not want it presented as evidence in a UK courtroom for all to see????

Ross

[murnut]

What hacker has gotten 70 years?

What hacker has gotten more than 10?

Most are under 5.

Many plead out to less than 2.

In order for Gary to be tried in the UK, the UK would have to charge him.

This has not happened.

Besides, the UK does not evidence of a crime committed against the UK.

Gary should have hacked the UK military network.

For all of Gary's efforts, he in fact has no proof of anything he claims.

If he had any real proof, we would have never of heard of him, he would have been "heart attacked"

It goes against logic that the Ptb would want this out in the open don't you think?

It goes against logic that the biggest secret in the history of mankind would be available to common hackers.

Since Gary decided he did not like his potential punishment, he has been "selling" his story.

You bought it.

But there is little reality in it.... In my opinion.

[Bill Ryan]

Hi, Murmut:

We'll always welcome intelligent, well-informed passion here, but regardless of your passion to criticize Gary, and your presumed intelligence, you don't seem to be well-informed.

I've not yet read every post of yours here, but I believe I get the gist. You've certainly got your teeth into this for some reason that is not clear to me.

As best I know, Gary has never personally made any of the claims (re his legal situation) that you seem to be assigning to him. These are the conjectures of other pundits in the UFO community.

Gary is legally prohibited from using a computer. He can't even send an e-mail himself. He does not post on any forums. He does not manage his own website. As best I understand, his mother, Janis, does that.

It's legitimate to debate the interesting issues, but not to criticize him personally. That's way out of order. It sounds as if you've never seen a single interview he gave, which is puzzling because I assume you would have informed yourself well before posting.

As a separate issue, Gary has no proof of anything which he saw or read on screen. He was using a dial-up modem and was not able to download anything (although I believe he did try, but it took too long.) He readily admits he broke the law.

I have two questions:

1) Can you help us understand where you're coming from?

2) (as Einstein would have called a thought experiment) - If Gary was here, what would you like to ask him? (Between us, we MAY be able to answer fairly on his behalf.)

Very best wishes, Bill

[JoinTheFun]

I would like to ask him if he holds any bargaining chips.

[King Lear]

I would ask him:
If he, or another one could make sketches of what he saw.

But probably, that only will happen after his trial.

[Bill Ryan]

Originally Posted by JoinTheFun

I would like to ask him if he holds any bargaining chips.

As best I know, he doesn't... except that Dan Burisch and Marci McDowell have stated that they will testify under penalty of perjury about the details of the secret space program - if called to do so.

That's a real wild card that might actually cut both ways... it COULD mean that it never goes to trial (i.e. gets delayed forever).

To King Lear's question: the only images he saw, as best I recall, were 'unairbrushed' lunar photos. They were clearly in two folders: the original images, and the same images when 'treated'. [My paraphrase - I don't recall what Gary said the folder names were.]

He found one original and was trying to download it on his 56k modem, but was interrupted and never completed the download. It was a very large file.

Very best, Bill

[King Lear]

Originally Posted by Bill Ryan

To King Lear's question: the only images he saw, as best I recall, were 'unairbrushed' lunar photos. They were clearly in two folders: the original images, and the same images when 'treated'. [My paraphrase - I don't recall what Gary said the folder names were.]

Dear Bill,
I don't rember if it was in your interview or the others he gave on tv, but he mentioned to have seen a kind of space station, of that he was pretty much sure that it wasn't earth-made.


Something like that:

[murnut]

Originally Posted by Bill Ryan

Hi, Murmut:

We'll always welcome intelligent, well-informed passion here, but regardless of your passion to criticize Gary, and your presumed intelligence, you don't seem to be well-informed.

I've not yet read every post of yours here, but I believe I get the gist. You've certainly got your teeth into this for some reason that is not clear to me.

As best I know, Gary has never personally made any of the claims (re his legal situation) that you seem to be assigning to him. These are the conjectures of other pundits in the UFO community.

Gary is legally prohibited from using a computer. He can't even send an e-mail himself. He does not post on any forums. He does not manage his own website. As best I understand, his mother, Janis, does that.

It's legitimate to debate the interesting issues, but not to criticize him personally. That's way out of order. It sounds as if you've never seen a single interview he gave, which is puzzling because I assume you would have informed yourself well before posting.

As a separate issue, Gary has no proof of anything which he saw or read on screen. He was using a dial-up modem and was not able to download anything (although I believe he did try, but it took too long.) He readily admits he broke the law.

I have two questions:

1) Can you help us understand where you're coming from?

2) (as Einstein would have called a thought experiment) - If Gary was here, what would you like to ask him? (Between us, we MAY be able to answer fairly on his behalf.)

Very best wishes, Bill

Hi Bill

Great site you have here.

I am a great admirer of what you and Kerry have done, are doing, and will do.

By the way...it is murNut, with an N.

I am disappointed that you would make a comment about me being uninformed, without reading my other posts.

I hope that Gary does as little time as possible, or none at all.

I don't think this is likely though.

If you would read some of my other posts on this matter, you would see that my main criticism is of Gary's supporters...speaking it would seem on his behalf.


I don't believe the ends justifies the means.

Some here do.

The circle must be broken, IMO, other wise how are we any different than those we despise?

I do have some problems, with some of the misinformation that has been floated by those that have identified themselves as Gary supporters.

Gary is not a terrorist, and was offered a fair plea arrangement in my opinion.

He declined, and this is his right.

If the issue is that the UK should not allow Gary to be extradited, that is a different matter.

I have no real opinion...other than Gary has had his day in court, 3 times on this issue, and lost.

Are all of these judges in on the conspiracy to get Gary?

Yes, I have seen multiple interviews of Gary, and read many news accounts.

If I am being asked if I believe Gary is credible, no, sadly I don't.

I don't believe secret ufo/space files are on computer networks.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

The biggest secret in the history of the world on a network?

I just don't think it is logical to believe this is true.

I am not aware that I have criticized him personally.

Maybe I questioned some of his decisions?

I have no questions for Gary.

Many have posted that Gary is a hero.

I can't say I agree.

The ufo community has hero's that don't break the law.

What about those that break their security oath, you might say?

Who has been prosecuted for this?

Gary's supporter making wild claims, hurts the credibility of the ufo community as a whole.

I believe only the best cases, that have the best witnesses, with supporting documentation, should be the cases that are debated in the public.


I feel bad for Gary, but time to man up.

[anonypony]

Originally Posted by murnut

I don't believe the ends justifies the means.
Some here do.

Dear Murnut
You are of course entitled to believe anything you like, but that does not necessarily make it true or factual.

The fact is, as I have illustrated in an earlier post, the legal system in both the UK and the USA does not agree with your believe!

The courts on both side of the Atlantic have ruled on a number of occasions, that in some cases 'the end justifies the means'. I am afraid 'your believe' - does not come into it.

If you asked 'Does ANY cause ALWAYS justify ANY means'? I suspect the courts will say NO! But it seems, that when 'damage' to property - is the only injury, and the cause is to prevent, or expose an even bigger crime, the courts after considering the particular case and it's merits, do sometimes rule, that the ends justifies the means.

When you keep on insisting that YOUR believes are better or juster then others while your believes do not align with the law as it stands, you are in fact mirroring the behaviour you are attributing to those who don't agree with your views - 'the supporters'.

What we also need to bear in mind here, is that Gary admitted ONLY to un authorised access and ALWAYS denied the accusations of DAMAGE.

What happened to 'one is innocent until proven guilty'?

[King Lear]

I'm astonished of the manner how many energy murnut does expense on this thread.
Posting yards-long posts and ongoing to criticise Gary's behaviour and our understanding of law.

There are only a few explenations:
- He has to be a Neo-Con
- an Ex-CIA agent
- an Ex-NASA employee who's computer got hacked and "damaged" and he disgraced
- or he is just a guy who's banking account got hacked by Gary


And Yoda says:

The

Enter

Key,

he

seems

to

love,

young

Padawan.

[anonypony]

Originally Posted by King Lear

I'm astonished of the manner how many energy murnut does expense on this thread.
Posting yards-long posts and ongoing to criticise Gary's behaviour and our understanding of law.

There are only a few explenations:
- He has to be a Neo-Con
- an Ex-CIA agent
- an Ex-NASA employee who's computer got hacked and "damaged" and he disgraced
- or he is just a guy who's banking account got hacked by Gary

Or just the thought police paid to post?


In any case I am grateful, as I said before, it gives me an opportunity to talk about it taking it a point at a time...

[murnut]

Originally Posted by King Lear

I'm astonished of the manner how many energy murnut does expense on this thread.
Posting yards-long posts and ongoing to criticise Gary's behaviour and our understanding of law.

There are only a few explenations:
- He has to be a Neo-Con
- an Ex-CIA agent
- an Ex-NASA employee who's computer got hacked and "damaged" and he disgraced
- or he is just a guy who's banking account got hacked by Gary

I was responding to Bill Ryan.

He asked me to reply and I have.

I respect Bill and owed that to him.

I am none of the above.

Plea arrangements are never guaranteed, in the US, they must be approved by the court.

But they are approved as written, 99% of the time.

[anonypony]

Originally Posted by murnut

"I do have some problems, with some of the misinformation that has been floated by those that have identified themselves as Gary supporters.

Gary... was offered a fair plea arrangement in my opinion. He declined, and this is his right."...

Dear Murnut and all

Was it a fair plea?

The question of 'a fair plea' and the notion that it was guarantied in writing, something you repeat ad infini with an air of authority, is where you are grossly misinformed in my view.

I would be very interested if you could provide any documented EVIDENCE to support this claim. Quoting the House of Lords decision, is not sufficient. and here is why:

When Gary was offered the plea he was inclined to take it. However when he asked for all the promises offered, to be guarantied in writing, the prosecutors refused. Within the bundle of documents submitted to the courts, there is a letter from the prosecutors, which clearly states that they reserve the right to declare Gary a terrorist and reserve the right to prosecute and lock him up ‘tanamo style. This letter was part of the evidence submitted to the house of lords hearing, it was never refuted as authentic, and it was discussed as part of the hearing, but despite it all, there is no mention of it in the HL ruling.

With this information in mind what do you think - Is that a fair plea?

Can we trust this people?

Lets look at another similar case, that of Kevin David Mitnick - he was left to rot in jail for four and a half years pre-trial, until he agreed to a plea! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick

In other words there is a great chance, that there is never going to be any court case, UNLESS there is a guilty plea!

Should one plea if s/he did not do the crime they are accused of?

This is a huge question. What would you do? (question to all)

[murnut]

Originally Posted by anonypony

Dear Murnut and all

Was it a fair plea?

The question of 'a fair plea' and the notion that it was guarantied in writing, something you repeat ad infini with an air of authority, is where you are grossly misinformed in my view.

I would be very interested if you could provide any documented EVIDENCE to support this claim. Quoting the House of Lords decision, is not sufficient. and here is why:

When Gary was offered the plea he was inclined to take it. However when he asked for all the promises offered, to be guarantied in writing, the prosecutors refused. Within the bundle of documents submitted to the courts, there is a letter from the prosecutors, which clearly states that they reserve the right to declare Gary a terrorist and reserve the right to prosecute and lock him up ‘tanamo style. This letter was part of the evidence submitted to the house of lords hearing, it was never refuted as authentic, and it was discussed as part of the hearing, but despite it all, there is no mention of it in the HL ruling.

With this information in mind what do you think - Is that a fair plea?

Can we trust this people?

Lets look at another similar case, that of Kevin David Mitnick - he was left to rot in jail for four and a half years pre-trial, until he agreed to a plea! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick

In other words there is a great chance, that there is never going to be any court case, UNLESS there is a guilty plea!

Should one plea if s/he did not do the crime they are accused of?

This is a huge question. What would you do? (question to all)

Thanks for proving my point....he did 5 years...not 70.

Gary has admitted the hacking.

When I get a speeding ticket, I pay the fine

[murnut]

Originally Posted by anonypony

Lets look at another similar case, that of Kevin David Mitnick - he was left to rot in jail for four and a half years pre-trial, until he agreed to a plea! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick

Are you sure this is the case you want to use as an example?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_VYWefmy34

Ok guys We've had some very valid arguments, both for, and against the way Gary is being treated, but now we appear to be going round in circles, and I think the thread has run it's course.

So, I've created a Poll which will run for 24 hours.

http://www.projectavalon.net/forum/s...ead.php?t=2327

There are 2 options:

• Close the thread, we agree to disagree, time to move on
• Leave the thread open, more discussion is needed

I cant stress enough that this is in no way any form of censorship.

Please vote guys, it's your choice

[atama]

don't close the thread!
closing this thread is like giving up on Gary. I'm sure the guys calling Gary a 'criminal' would love that.

They can put 1 cop on here to ruin a thread and it's closed? that's making it real easy for 'em.

Originally Posted by atama

don't close the thread!.

WOW That's two threads in a row I hear the words "Closing thread" and one was deleted?

I left another popular board because they started doing that and deleting certain posts as well...

I hope I don't see a trend here...

[anonypony]

I think it is a good idea to keep it open.
The information on the thread is valuable and informative.
The fact that there is no agreement, serves the exploration of the many issues this case presents.

I say keep it on!

However I would ask that we debate it in a mature way, repeating oneself and shouting loud does not make someone right.

[murnut]

Musado....

I end posting in this thread.

Originally Posted by bluestix

Any slave with the audacity to question the masters is sure to be whipped.

Heaven forbid I should question the ufo "masters"

[Orion11]

love the drama eh?

crazyness.

why should it even matter to anyone if this thread is here?

if your tired of it.. stop clicking on the link for it.

[murnut]

Sorry...one more

Steve Bass says it better than me.

http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0908/Ufology.html

[anonypony]

A new thread - Gary Mckinnon | News and Call for Action
For those who are interested in the latest news about Gary's case,
or wish to help Gary by providing useful information,
or joining in protest,
let this space be the hub for this purpose.
http://www.projectavalon.net/forum/s...ead.php?t=2340

Gary McKinnon Protest
4:00 pm, Sunday, 28 September
Outside the US Embassy
Grosvener Sq. London

A letter from Janis (Gary's mum)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Dear All

Any day now, my son, Gary McKinnon, could face extradition from Britain to the United States where he would stand trial for hacking into US government computers and could face a sentence of sixty years (Charged with 7 counts, proposed sentence Ten Years Per Count)

Gary has recently been diagnosed as suffering from Lifetime Aspergers Syndrome, which is why I and his family and his many friends and supporters around the world are arguing that Gary should be allowed to stay in the U.K and face the courts in the country where the offence, if offence there was, was committed.

The United States authorities waited two years to call for Gary's arrest because of a then unratified, unsigned extradition treaty between the two countries which would make it easier for them to have a British citizen sent for trial in the US. Yet, when he was first arrested in London, Gary was told he would probably get a sentence of community service for his hacking activities. He naively admitted computer misuse before he had engaged a lawyer and without a lawyer even being present. We were still unaware that he had Aspergers Syndrome.

Gary gained no leniency for his honesty and on the contrary, his extradition has been relentlessly pursued by the British and American authorities, despite the crown prosecution service (CPS) declining to prosecute Gary in Britain. This attitude will hardly encourage British citizens to come clean regarding any crimes they may have committed. If no leniency or consideration is given when a person accused of a crime immediately and openly tells the truth, there is little point in them admitting to anything.

The CPS refusal to prosecute Gary here was clearly done to allow the Americans to arrest him two and a half years later, once the one-sided extradition treaty was introduced and then made retrospective. In addition, in order to indict Gary, the US authorities had to claim a specific amount of financial damage. Gary has always denied causing damage and without proof of such, the U.S could not prosecute him. Then, just a month ago the U.S prosecutors stated in an interview, that once Gary was extradited, the most difficult thing to prove would be the damage!

Several weeks ago the goal posts were changed yet again when the U.S brought in a new law whereby no proof of damage was required where military computers were concerned. For the American law to then have been conveniently changed at such a crucial time, so that proof of damage is no longer required speaks volumes and does little to give us any faith in such a "legal" system. (Gary has always denied the alleged damage)

Surely as a vulnerable adult with Aspergers Syndrome, Gary should be allowed to stay in the U.K and face the justice system of the country where his alleged offence took place. So why is Gary's Extradition still being sought? He admitted computer mis-use six an a half years ago and the U.S have changed the law so that they now have no need to prove the alleged damage. So why is there now any need for a trial?

Gary could be sentenced to serve an appropriate time in an open prison in the U.K

If we can somehow keep up the pressure, the Home Office just might rule in gary's favour, as they are now apparently re-considering his case.

If this happened Gary & Lucy (and us "Janis & Wilson") could all have our lives back again.

Every morning for six and a half years we have woken up gripped by fear at the prospect of Gary being extradited and spending most of his life in a hard line U.S prison, or even dying there.

On most days it's difficult to wake up and put one foot in front of the other and this intense long term stress and fear has taken its toll of us all for the past six and a half years. This in itself has been a sentence of continual Torment.

Please try and come to the protest and get everyone you can to attend, as it just might change things for the better and at the moment the only hope we have is to draw attention to the injustice, extremely flawed treaty and proposed disproportionate sentence

This is not just about Gary; it's about the fact that any U.K citizen can now be extradited to America on the strength of an allegation alone. These allegations are presented to our courts as Facts and accepted as such by our courts and Law Lords without the accused having any opportunity to challenge or rebut the allegations. Our courts and Law Lords have publicly pronounced Gary guilty of Damage to military computer systems without him having the benefit of a trial in which to challenge the allegations. This has severely prejudiced any trial Gary might have in the future.

This treaty was signed in secret under the "Queens Prerogative" by David Blunket a day prior to Parliamentary recess, so that no debate by Parliament was able to take place.

This so called treaty was not signed by the U.S and despite the fact that it did not come into effect until April 2007, it was made retrospective in 2004 to allow them to request the Extradition of my son Gary and others without any proof having to be shown. A Prima Facie case was effectively dispensed with.

How can a treaty by its very nature be one sided and how can it be made retrospective?

The Nat West Three, British business men and white collar workers have been extradited under this one sided treaty without any proof having to be provided, although Politicians were told that the treaty was to be used for Terrorists.

We used to have a statute of limitations in this country and I don't know when that changed.

Many Thanks for the support given to us by friends and compassionate strangers who have become friends. Your help is appreciated more than you could ever know.

Yours Sincerely

Janis (Gary's mum)

Note Pinochet and others accused of extremely serious crimes lost their legal battles - Pinochet in fact lost twice in the Lords before the Secretary of State intervened at the last minute (Jack Straw ˆ who also prevented the extradition of Roisin McAliskey to Germany for an allegation of IRA terrorism) to prevent removal from the UK and end the extradition process. McAliskey was on the grounds of mental health and Pinochet I believe primarily physical health. However they were viewed at the time as political decisions in sensitive areas.

Gary's crime of computer misuse is so miniscule in comparison to either of the two cases just mentioned.

[Mike_Jetson]

I cant believe people here and at other sites are debating Garys actions. Garys actions pale into insignificance in comparison to the way ours and the American governments have changed and manipulated laws in their favour. Not our favour. Theirs.

Standing up for Gary is standing up to the nonsense that has been ruling over us for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Anyone who decides to think the right thing to do is send him to America is totally beyond reckoning in my view. Can you not see the laws have not been working in our favour for so long. Madness