Poor Gary Mckinnon

[murnut]

Gary is not in jail

Originally Posted by murnut

Gary is not in jail

Gary is still in Britain

[Antaletriangle]

The people that created these "laws" are the same people trying to convict a person for revealing what is hidden and "theirs".
The use of knowledge is what counts not so much as in knowledge per se.Knowledge can be known,but what use is knowing something when it's left idling away on a dusty shelf or only probably used as a detriment to the peoples of the earth as in black projects?
O.K. the guy's fearful of extradiction-he's a human,fear comes in the makeup-he's only as fearful as the dictators of the planet,they're in fear of this technology affecting the plans of the NWO and the georgia guidestones scenario,(no planetary culling but a potentially harmonious existence where people would not worry about bills but could concentrate more on understanding and mutual benefits if this tech.was made public).He's meddled in something and got in well deep,what's the problem here?
He wishes to serve his time but on British soil,like other countries that has already been stated.
Why don't they give him a chance to go on the world stage and speak about his misgivings and ask for a punishment to be served in the U.K.? They won't allow this because of bringing it to the attention of the populations of the planet.Not many people are fully aware of the full information in this trial-the limited media coverage it has been given is always biased and never focuses on the humanitarian aspect of this.It's the terrorism mantra-yawn,yawn.
Is their no humanity left?
It beggars belief how people jump on the same stage as the warlords and dictators-"He's done wrong;this boy BAD!!!"
"He BE PUNISHED BIG STYLE"
I want these aggressors of nations to be brought to justice,Gary's small fry if it comes to terrorist acts and similar-what's the problem here!!?
It all begins in the playground and it appears most have not left.

Please don't approach my discussion as if im pointing fingers as i'm not,i just wish to state that the way this has been dealt with is like something out of the dark ages!They'll get the stocks out next for Hors d'œuvres before his trial,then maybe a guillotine would befit this man? It's a joke.

[murnut]

I have no problem with Gary serving his time in Britain.

That was part of the plea agreement...WHICH GARY TURNED DOWN.


But you catch more flies with honey, don't you think.

Gary and his supporters have misrepresented the facts in the press....ie....Guantanamo, torture, 70 years...etc.

I am sure this does nothing but p!ss off those that are in a position to be lenient.

[Antaletriangle]

Yeah murnut i do understand yer mate,but it's the media again ain't it-all part of the same package-they work together.It's like the wolves circling for the blood.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by Antaletriangle

Yeah murnut i do understand yer mate,but it's the media again ain't it-all part of the same package-they work together.It's like the wolves circling for the blood.

I am not sure what you are saying

[Antaletriangle]

You stated that there have been MIINTERPRETATIONS of the press-why did the press mention Guantameno initially,what is there to interpret?As soon a Guantanemo is mentioned by the press then that's the fear factory in full swing-let the wolves encircle waiting for the fear to produce a "good story".
They dine from the same plate.

http://security.itproportal.com/arti...dition-appeal/

NASA hacker Gary McKinnon has lost his appeal at the High Court against his extradition to the US to face a trial by prosecutors who allegedly told him he "would fry". McKinnon's lawyers will seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

McKinnon hacked into US military and NASA computers in 2001 and 2002 and admitted to the incident when arrested in November 2002. He was told by UK prosecutors that he faced community service, but US prosecutors sought his extradition.

Prosecutors in the US have said they believe McKinnon could be jailed for 70 years, could face a military and not a civil court and could even be interred at Guantanemo Bay.

If that isn't scaremongery by the press reports!?

or this:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...h_hacker_.html
UK hacker Gary McKinnon is getting a lot of play out of America's (sadly, well-earned) international reputation for bypassing due process and ignoring human rights in the War on Terror.

[Antaletriangle]

At last some good news from a an amasing/fave band!!

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...y-gig-mckinnon

PROG ROCK supergroup Marillion has agreed to play a benefit gig for Gary McKinnon as the Pentagon hacker's legal team prepares a last ditch attempt to have his US extradition order quashed.

Meanwhile, a political campaign to persuade Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to reject the US extradition request has gained momentum, with a clutch of big hitters demanding she show humanitarian care when considering the fate of people with Asperger's Syndrome, with which Gary was diagnosed in the summer.

Mark Kelly, keyboard player with Marillion, told the INQUIRER: "We're definitely interested. I spoke to the band about it and said let's put ourselves forward because its an important cause. They have agreed in principle. We just need to get some more details.

"I've always had an interest in computers and I read about Gary's case a couple of years ago. I identified with him a bit - someone hacking into computers and it being a bit of harmless rummaging around. He was looking for evidence of UFOs - it's not like he was a terrorist or anything," he said. "I'm a bit of a computer geek - keyboard player in a band - it comes with the territory really. Not that I ever got into hacking systems, but I could imagine in my younger and more stupid days I would have done something like that if I had the technical capability and would have seen it as a bit of harmless fun, and would never have thought it would lead to something as serious as this," he added.

"When I heard he was being extradited and was facing many years in prison and was being made an example of I thought, that's a bit harsh. He should stand trial here, shouldn't he?" said Kelly, who has someone with Asperger's Syndrome in his own family.

cont.on link above.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by Antaletriangle

You stated that there have been MIINTERPRETATIONS of the press-why did the press mention Guantameno initially,what is there to interpret?As soon a Guantanemo is mentioned by the press then that's the fear factory in full swing-let the wolves encircle waiting for the fear to produce a "good story".
They dine from the same plate.

http://security.itproportal.com/arti...dition-appeal/

NASA hacker Gary McKinnon has lost his appeal at the High Court against his extradition to the US to face a trial by prosecutors who allegedly told him he "would fry". McKinnon's lawyers will seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

McKinnon hacked into US military and NASA computers in 2001 and 2002 and admitted to the incident when arrested in November 2002. He was told by UK prosecutors that he faced community service, but US prosecutors sought his extradition.

Prosecutors in the US have said they believe McKinnon could be jailed for 70 years, could face a military and not a civil court and could even be interred at Guantanemo Bay.

If that isn't scaremongery by the press reports!?

or this:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...h_hacker_.html
UK hacker Gary McKinnon is getting a lot of play out of America's (sadly, well-earned) international reputation for bypassing due process and ignoring human rights in the War on Terror.

These exaggerations come from Gary's side...and then are reported in the press.

It is a lie that Gary faces a MILITARY tribunal, it is a lie that Gary is to be treated as an enemy combatant, it is a lie that Gary would be held in Guantanamo, it is a lie that Gary faces 70 years, given US sentencing guide lines.

Gary is supporting lying.

Gary would support anything in the name his own self interest

[nomadrush]

ROCK AGAINST INJUSTICE

Some of the biggest names in rock and pop music are being lined up for a massive concert in London in December for ROCK AGAINST INJUSTICE, a gig to bring awareness to the people of the unjust extradition treaty between the UK and USA that is about to see a number of British citizens including Gary McKinnon thrown out of the UK without trial or proof of any guilt.

Comedian Russell Brand has been invited to host and compere the event and names that are being approached include George Michael, Bob Geldof, Sting, Mark Knopfler, Rod Stewart, Marillion, Squeeze, Mika and many others!

The event will also raise money for ASPERGERS SYNDROME, as Gary McKinnon was diagnosed as a sufferer recently.

The organisers are now in discussions with a number of venues including the 02 Arena, Wembley Arena, The Royal Albert Hall and the NEC.

Senior front bench Conservative and Liberal MP's are behind a review to the extradition treaty but the Labour leadership refuses to debate the document in the house. Many British citizens say "their blood is boiling" over this issue and that there elected representatives are not acting in the interests of the British people.

Mark Kelly from legendary 60's band Marillion was the first to contact the organisers pledging his support and saying this is a cause that people need to get behind.

PLEASE everyone who cares about this UNFAIR EXTRADITION TREATY -help us publicise this event and get even more people on board - we need PROMOTERS and HELPERS urgently.

Ross Hemsworth
Presenter of the worldwide syndicated hit programme Now THAT'S Weird - www.nowthatsweird.co.uk
MY DAILY BLOG - http://blog.myspace.com/rosshemsworth

[TheGhost]

"1)All humans are equal under the law."

Murnut, this is patently untrue. Serving heads of state are immune from prosecution.

"2) Knowledge is power if obtained lawfully"
"the ufo community forfeits whatever "moral authority" it has when it attempts to take the law, even a flawed one, into it's own hands."

Murnut, your argument presupposes that all laws are moral and just. This is also patently untrue.

Also, people are not bound by unjust laws. If the law is unjust they have a right to disobey it.
I'll refer you to one of my previous posts - all civil rights that we enjoy today were once illegal. People had to fight for them. People died for them, any not just in wars but in pitched battles with police/military within their own countries.

"Taking the "law" into ones own hands hurts the credibility of all of us."

Murnut, you seem to be one of those people who are addicted to the hunt [for knowledge of UFOs, or whatever] and you don't really want answers to come out because then the hunt is over.

Hacking into the pentagon and NASA, etc, is a pretty serious attempt at finding out the truth. The US authorities' actions (as well as the actions of the UK govt - making the Extradition Act 2003 retroactive so that it would apply to certain people, for example) shows how seriously they take his actions. How many in the "UFO community" have come under such scrutiny? Not many, because not many are prepared to go to the lengths that he did; the vast majority of people in the UFO community are agents.

"I can make a case that he should have only hacked UK military targets"
I sense some nationalism tainting your point of view here, murnut! Could that be the source of your angst with regard to Gary McKinnon's actions, by any chance?

"It is a lie that Gary faces a MILITARY tribunal, it is a lie that Gary is to be treated as an enemy combatant, it is a lie that Gary would be held in Guantanamo, it is a lie that Gary faces 70 years"
At a hearing on 12 April 2006 the prosecution produced an unsigned note from the US Embassy, claimed to be a guarantee that McKinnon would not be tried under U.S. Military Order 1 (November 13, 2001 - 66 Fed. Reg. 57,833 "Military Order"), which allows suspected terrorists to be tried under military law. However, the defence argued that the note was not binding as it was unsigned. The defence called as a witness Clive Stafford-Smith, a US-based lawyer who has defended inmates of Guantanamo Bay. Stafford-Smith argued that the note would not prevent McKinnon from being treated as a terrorist.

Murnut, you talk repeatedly of Gary not wanting to face the consequences of his actions.
The consequences of his actions under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 would have been 6 months' community service, if found guilty (the Crown Prosecution Service refused to charge him, by the way). This is quite a big difference from the 70 years he has been threatened with by the US authorities.



Murnut, the majority of your arguments are actually beside the point because Gary shouldn't even be faced with extradition. The Extradtion Act 2003 does not require the presentation of prima facie evidence by the US authorities. The MPs who pushed this act through parliament committed treason - putting the interests of a foreign government before the interests of British citizens.

Murnut, I'll ask you once again: how does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence?

And by the way, ducking questions, giving vague arguments and failing to answer specific points raised by other members hurts your credibility, murnut.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"1)All humans are equal under the law."

Murnut, this is patently untrue. Serving heads of state are immune from prosecution.

My quote is taken out of context...why not include the quote i was replying to?

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"2) Knowledge is power if obtained lawfully"
"the ufo community forfeits whatever "moral authority" it has when it attempts to take the law, even a flawed one, into it's own hands."


Murnut, your argument presupposes that all laws are moral and just. This is also patently untrue.

Hacking is moral and just?

Gary should have hacked is own military, not the US

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Also, people are not bound by unjust laws. If the law is unjust they have a right to disobey it.
I'll refer you to one of my previous posts - all civil rights that we enjoy today were once illegal. People had to fight for them. People died for them, any not just in wars but in pitched battles with police/military within their own countries.

Taxes are illegal in my opinion, but I still pay them.

What civil liberty is being denied?

The right to know what goes on in black projects?

That's the crime?

There is no right to know military secrets.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"Taking the "law" into ones own hands hurts the credibility of all of us."

Murnut, you seem to be one of those people who are addicted to the hunt [for knowledge of UFOs, or whatever] and you don't really want answers to come out because then the hunt is over.

Sticks and stones.

Truth is...Uncle is generally clueless about the phenomena...that's why they still scramble jets to chase them.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Hacking into the pentagon and NASA, etc, is a pretty serious attempt at finding out the truth. The US authorities' actions (as well as the actions of the UK govt - making the Extradition Act 2003 retroactive so that it would apply to certain people, for example) shows how seriously they take his actions. How many in the "UFO community" have come under such scrutiny? Not many, because not many are prepared to go to the lengths that he did; the vast majority of people in the UFO community are agents.

You probably think I am an agent..hehe

If Gary was not prepared to face the music, he should not have done the crime.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"I can make a case that he should have only hacked UK military targets"
I sense some nationalism tainting your point of view here, murnut! Could that be the source of your angst with regard to Gary McKinnon's actions, by any chance?

I am a proud American...does that make me evil?

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"It is a lie that Gary faces a MILITARY tribunal, it is a lie that Gary is to be treated as an enemy combatant, it is a lie that Gary would be held in Guantanamo, it is a lie that Gary faces 70 years"

At a hearing on 12 April 2006 the prosecution produced an unsigned note from the US Embassy, claimed to be a guarantee that McKinnon would not be tried under U.S. Military Order 1 (November 13, 2001 - 66 Fed. Reg. 57,833 "Military Order"), which allows suspected terrorists to be tried under military law. However, the defence argued that the note was not binding as it was unsigned. The defence called as a witness Clive Stafford-Smith, a US-based lawyer who has defended inmates of Guantanamo Bay. Stafford-Smith argued that the note would not prevent McKinnon from being treated as a terrorist.

Grasping at straws....look at the charges freely available online.

Gary is not charged as a terrorist...period.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Murnut, you talk repeatedly of Gary not wanting to face the consequences of his actions.
The consequences of his actions under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 would have been 6 months' community service, if found guilty (the Crown Prosecution Service refused to charge him, by the way). This is quite a big difference from the 70 years he has been threatened with by the US authorities.

Gee...he was offered 36 mos...the last 18 to be served in Britain.

HE REFUSED

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Murnut, the majority of your arguments are actually beside the point because Gary shouldn't even be faced with extradition. The Extradtion Act 2003 does not require the presentation of prima facie evidence by the US authorities. The MPs who pushed this act through parliament committed treason - putting the interests of a foreign government before the interests of British citizens.

Murnut, I'll ask you once again: how does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence?

Again, I have no opinion on the extradition law.

Gary will have the opportunity to defend himself at trial in the States.

Again, my opinion is that Gary should plead out.

If Gary feels his case is soooooo strong and there is no evidence, there should not be any problems...right?

Originally Posted by TheGhost

And by the way, ducking questions, giving vague arguments and failing to answer specific points raised by other members hurts your credibility, murnut.

Now that isn't fair since I have answered every question directed at me.


I apologize that you don't agree with my opinion.

I don't think I have been vague at all.

Got an example that is not taken out of context...like your first quote of me above?

[RFburns]

I am wondering if this Gary is seeing all of this as worth the trouble and negative publicity.

Im not sure that it is from my prospective. What further proof or gain has the public obtained from this..if anything?

Are we any closer to truth? Or has this brought another black mark upon the ufo community?

I wouldnt mind someone showing me what has come out of all this except for the back and forth debating on penalties and extraditions and refusals.

Who is benefiting from all of this?

Cheers!!!!

[TheGhost]

"I have no opinion on the extradition law."
This is what I mean about ducking questions. You don't need to know about the Extradition Act 2003, specifically, or have an opinion on that law, specifically.
The point of the question is about the act circumventing the centuries old principle of prima facie evidence being presented by the prosecution.

What is your opinion on the situation that people can now be extradited on the CLAIM of a crime without the prosecution being burdened with the need to produce EVIDENCE of the crime?

You say he'll get a chance to defend himself in the US. He shouldn't even be faced with the possibility of being extradited in the first place and be put into the situation where he has the 'opportunity' to defend himself in a US court.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"I have no opinion on the extradition law."
This is what I mean about ducking questions. You don't need to know about the Extradition Act 2003, specifically, or have an opinion on that law, specifically.
The point of the question is about the act circumventing the centuries old principle of prima facie evidence being presented by the prosecution.

What is your opinion on the situation that people can now be extradited on the CLAIM of a crime without the prosecution being burdened with the need to produce EVIDENCE of the crime?

You say he'll get a chance to defend himself in the US. He shouldn't even be faced with the possibility of being extradited in the first place and be put into the situation where he has the 'opportunity' to defend himself in a US court.

My only opinion, as stated before is that Gary's lawyers have appealed to the British and European courts and lost.

Gary admitted to the hacking by the way.

Isn't that evidence?

My guess is that you will say "No"

[TheGhost]

Originally Posted by murnut

My only opinion, as stated before is that Gary's lawyers have appealed to the British and European courts and lost.

Gary admitted to the hacking by the way.

Isn't that evidence?

My guess is that you will say "No"

You are still ducking the question that I posed.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

You are still ducking the question that I posed.

The question has been answered...or perhaps you don't like the answer...or perhaps I have misinterpreted the question.

[TheGhost]

"To be replaced by who or what exactly?"
I said nothing whatsoever about replacing them at all. This is the level at which you are thinking - you asume they should or need to be replaced; I do not.

"he would have stood up and faced the charges like a man"
This goes back to the same argumement. He should not be facing charges from the US in the first place.

How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence against you?

"The Utopia you desire"
What the hell are you talking about? When did I ever mention anything about Utopia (not that I desire one, as Utopia is the false paradise promised by satan, just FYI)? I have been making legal points about Gary's case and you talk about Utopia. Get on the right page, murnut! lol

"the U.C. has to be ever vigilant...not to lie, not commit crimes of any kind, not to use the same tactics that have been used against us."
See what I said in the previous posts - all the government has to do is pass another law to make previously legal actions illegal. And, every civil right we have was once illegal!
You need to get over this obsession with legality. It is childish in the extreme. I'm not trying to insult you, murnut, but you are making it very difficult! You know that phrase, 'thinking outside the box'? You are in a very small, dark box at the moment. You need to expand your mind to consider actions that the government (the ones who are oppressing you) have deemed to be illegal. They will make anything illegal that they have to, to maintain the status quo.
What if they made simply asking questions about UFOs illegal? What if they banned all UFO related books, videos, DVDs, banned anyone talking publically about it? What if they, essentially, introduced prohibition where it comes to ETs?

As for using the same tactics as them, we (the general public) do not have the resources to do that. But, they have been very effective, so why not use the same tactics against the PTB?

The 90% of the world's population that you speak of will, if they ever stop watching football, soap operas and reality TV, only take notice of the results, not the method. Paradigm changing information like this will get their attention. 'Illegal' methods used to obtain it will pale into insignificance next to the information itself. No-one will care about who got it or how or anything like that. You and the rest of the UFO community do not need to worry about gaining the 'respect' of the masses. You are not that important. Even if you, murnut, were the one to finally reveal the 'truth' to everyone, the truth would overshadow you by a long way.

"Comparing Gary's case to slavery is ridiculous...imo."
I wasn't actually comparing Gary's case to slavery. I was comparing the truth embargo on UFOs/ETs/free energy to the situation a slave might find himself in. I was giving an example of how RIGHTS are not something awarded to you as a privilege by a government, or master, they are something you have by way of being born. When non-violent protests are exhausted (against someone who is violating your rights) violence is the only thing left. Acquiescence to the situation would be a crime against yourself.

"So if it is morally correct...why won't Gary stand up?"
Gary did stand up, because it is morally correct, by hacking in the first place. His actions (hacking) were morally correct because it is immoral to surpress free energy technology when in the UK alone 50,000 elderly people a year freeze to death. God knows how many die in this way in the US and elsewhere.

Gary's actions were morally correct. But his legal situation is another story all together. Do you know how the legal system works? Do you know that even simple words like 'must' have a different meaning in the law to what they do in plain English? The legal system is a completely different beast.

But again, we go back to the same argument. He shouldn't even be faced with the situation of being extradited to a foreign country for 'crimes' that occured in Britain. The CPS refused to prosecute him here. He did face justice and their conclusion was to throw out the case against him.

Then comes the Extradition Act 2003. It is made retroactive which is a highly unusual move and violates lots of well established (just a few centuries' worth) principles of law and justice. It gets rid of the need for the prosecution to provide prima facie evidence (again, just a few centuries' worth of well established law) and essentially puts Gary into a situation he should never have been facing.

When his 'crimes' were committed, facing extradition to a foreign country with no evidence being presented by the prosecution and facing a possible 70 year jail term were NOT the consequences of his actions. A possible sentence for him would have been 6 months' community service IF found guilty, but like I said the case was thrown out of court.


I don't think any of your answers actually answered any of the points I made, or perhaps maybe vaguely once or twice. This is what I meant in a previous post about you giving vague or generic answers that don't actually answer the points. Sure, you've quoted my comments but your answer doesn't actually ANSWER the point being made. Sorry for repeating myself; I feel it necessary.

[murnut]

We agree on very little and apparently suffer from a failure to communicate.

I will try to be clearer, but you may never get the points I am making

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"he would have stood up and faced the charges like a man"
This goes back to the same argumement. He should not be facing charges from the US in the first place.

How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence against you?

There has been no prosecution as of yet....but if you refer to the extradition...check the House of Lords ruling.

You will find your answer there
http://www.publications.parliament.u...0/mckinn-1.htm

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"The Utopia you desire"
What the hell are you talking about? When did I ever mention anything about Utopia (not that I desire one, as Utopia is the false paradise promised by satan, just FYI)? I have been making legal points about Gary's case and you talk about Utopia. Get on the right page, murnut! lol

The utopia where folks only follow laws they think are moral.

What about the Islamic extremists?

I am sure they think their actions are morally justified.

Hacking is wrong.

In my opinion.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"the U.C. has to be ever vigilant...not to lie, not commit crimes of any kind, not to use the same tactics that have been used against us."
See what I said in the previous posts - all the government has to do is pass another law to make previously legal actions illegal. And, every civil right we have was once illegal!
You need to get over this obsession with legality. It is childish in the extreme. I'm not trying to insult you, murnut, but you are making it very difficult! You know that phrase, 'thinking outside the box'? You are in a very small, dark box at the moment. You need to expand your mind to consider actions that the government (the ones who are oppressing you) have deemed to be illegal. They will make anything illegal that they have to, to maintain the status quo.
What if they made simply asking questions about UFOs illegal? What if they banned all UFO related books, videos, DVDs, banned anyone talking publically about it? What if they, essentially, introduced prohibition where it comes to ETs?

I don't think I like your tone.

I speak out against the govt all the time...the bailout, 911, wars.

I don't resort to breaking the law...because I don't want to go to jail.

If I get a speeding ticket, I pay it.

I pay my mortgage, because if I don't, the evil bank will take my house.

Opposition to perceived unjust laws are fine.

But the manner of the opposition should not be as morally wrong....in my opinion.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

As for using the same tactics as them, we (the general public) do not have the resources to do that. But, they have been very effective, so why not use the same tactics against the PTB?

Because it is wrong

Originally Posted by TheGhost

The 90% of the world's population that you speak of will, if they ever stop watching football, soap operas and reality TV, only take notice of the results, not the method. Paradigm changing information like this will get their attention. 'Illegal' methods used to obtain it will pale into insignificance next to the information itself. No-one will care about who got it or how or anything like that. You and the rest of the UFO community do not need to worry about gaining the 'respect' of the masses. You are not that important. Even if you, murnut, were the one to finally reveal the 'truth' to everyone, the truth would overshadow you by a long way.

I doubt you would ever believe what the real truth is

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"Comparing Gary's case to slavery is ridiculous...imo."
I wasn't actually comparing Gary's case to slavery. I was comparing the truth embargo on UFOs/ETs/free energy to the situation a slave might find himself in. I was giving an example of how RIGHTS are not something awarded to you as a privilege by a government, or master, they are something you have by way of being born. When non-violent protests are exhausted (against someone who is violating your rights) violence is the only thing left. Acquiescence to the situation would be a crime against yourself.

Truth embargo?

Govts are not about truth...try a church.

Govts lie...this will never change.

When and if there is disclosure, you won't believe it.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"So if it is morally correct...why won't Gary stand up?"
Gary did stand up, because it is morally correct, by hacking in the first place. His actions (hacking) were morally correct because it is immoral to surpress free energy technology when in the UK alone 50,000 elderly people a year freeze to death. God knows how many die in this way in the US and elsewhere.

Gary's actions were morally correct. But his legal situation is another story all together. Do you know how the legal system works? Do you know that even simple words like 'must' have a different meaning in the law to what they do in plain English? The legal system is a completely different beast.

We disagree on what morality is apparently.

Morality is standing up for what is right no matter what the consequences.

Gary refuses to face his.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

But again, we go back to the same argument. He shouldn't even be faced with the situation of being extradited to a foreign country for 'crimes' that occured in Britain. The CPS refused to prosecute him here. He did face justice and their conclusion was to throw out the case against him.

I understand this argument, however your courts felt differently.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Then comes the Extradition Act 2003. It is made retroactive which is a highly unusual move and violates lots of well established (just a few centuries' worth) principles of law and justice. It gets rid of the need for the prosecution to provide prima facie evidence (again, just a few centuries' worth of well established law) and essentially puts Gary into a situation he should never have been facing.

He admitted hacking...this is considered evidence.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

When his 'crimes' were committed, facing extradition to a foreign country with no evidence being presented by the prosecution and facing a possible 70 year jail term were NOT the consequences of his actions. A possible sentence for him would have been 6 months' community service IF found guilty, but like I said the case was thrown out of court.

An admission of guilt is considered evidence...and US sentencing guidelines probably puts him at 5 years.

Show me a case where a hacker has served more than 5 years in the US

Originally Posted by TheGhost

I don't think any of your answers actually answered any of the points I made, or perhaps maybe vaguely once or twice. This is what I meant in a previous post about you giving vague or generic answers that don't actually answer the points. Sure, you've quoted my comments but your answer doesn't actually ANSWER the point being made. Sorry for repeating myself; I feel it necessary.

I answered everyone of your points...you just don't like my answers

[TheGhost]

"Show me a case where a hacker has served more than 5 years in the US"

Show me a case where a hacker has hacked into all the places Gary did and saw all the things he did. And where laws are CHANGED and made RETROACTIVE in a country by TRAITOROUS politicians to allow the hacker to be extradited, WITHOUT evidence of a crime being presented at his extradition trial, to a foreign country. Nothing about Gary's case is run-of-the-mill.

He is facing an exceptionally extreme and illegal set of circumstances. People are committing treason to get him over to the States! Gary will be lucky if the plane he gets sent over on doesn't crash into the Atlantic.

No-one goes to all the trouble that the US/UK authorities have over a simple hacking case. The fact that they have gone to such lengths (changing laws, ignoring centuries old principles of law, committing treason, etc) shows that what he saw - or may have seen, as you don't believe he saw anything that he claims to - is obviously the reason they have gone to such extremes. His actions rattled them. They are not going to give him the usual punishment any other hacker might get.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"Show me a case where a hacker has served more than 5 years in the US"

Show me a case where a hacker has hacked into all the places Gary did and saw all the things he did. And where laws are CHANGED and made RETROACTIVE in a country by TRAITOROUS politicians to allow the hacker to be extradited, WITHOUT evidence of a crime being presented at his extradition trial, to a foreign country. Nothing about Gary's case is run-of-the-mill.

He is facing an exceptionally extreme and illegal set of circumstances. People are committing treason to get him over to the States! Gary will be lucky if the plane he gets sent over on doesn't crash into the Atlantic.

No-one goes to all the trouble that the US/UK authorities have over a simple hacking case. The fact that they have gone to such lengths (changing laws, ignoring centuries old principles of law, committing treason, etc) shows that what he saw - or may have seen, as you don't believe he saw anything that he claims to - is obviously the reason they have gone to such extremes. His actions rattled them. They are not going to give him the usual punishment any other hacker might get.

Gary saw nothing...I repeat...nothing.

You would have never of heard of him if he did....and the greatest secret ever is not hooked to the internet, not now or ever.

Gary has played you, he has lied about the potential charges, and he is probably lying about what he saw.

[leeboy]

posted by THEGHOST "He is facing an exceptionally extreme and illegal set of circumstances. People are committing treason to get him over to the States! Gary will be lucky if the plane he gets sent over on doesn't crash into the Atlantic."


I fear you may be closer to the truth than you may realise. The ptb are above any law and are answerable to no-one.

[TheGhost]

"I can make a case that he should have only hacked UK military targets"
I sense some nationalism tainting your point of view here, murnut! Could that be the source of your angst with regard to Gary McKinnon's actions, by any chance?

I am a proud American...does that make me evil?


Don't confuse patriotism with nationalism. 'My country, right or wrong' is nationalism, not patriotism. It is perhaps a subtle but very important distinction. A US patriot would be doing the same kind of thing that Gary was doing.
The oath that Americans take is to defend the CONSTITUTION (not the government) against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. America is overflowing with domestic enemies. However, they don't just threaten the US but the whole world.
The constitution wasn't threatened by Gary! It is however being threatened by US politicians, law makers, military, intelligence, diplomats, bankers, secret society members, etc, etc, etc.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"I can make a case that he should have only hacked UK military targets"
I sense some nationalism tainting your point of view here, murnut! Could that be the source of your angst with regard to Gary McKinnon's actions, by any chance?

I am a proud American...does that make me evil?


Don't confuse patriotism with nationalism. 'My country, right or wrong' is nationalism, not patriotism. It is perhaps a subtle but very important distinction. A US patriot would be doing the same kind of thing that Gary was doing.
The oath that Americans take is to defend the CONSTITUTION (not the government) against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. America is overflowing with domestic enemies. However, they don't just threaten the US but the whole world.
The constitution wasn't threatened by Gary! It is however being threatened by US politicians, law makers, military, intelligence, diplomats, bankers, secret society members, etc, etc, etc.

Well said. Cant stand patriotism when its in this form. Makes me want to vomit.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN

Well said. Cant stand patriotism when its in this form. Makes me want to vomit.

How about a specific quote of mine that confirms this conclusion?