Poor Gary Mckinnon

[TheGhost]

Originally Posted by historycircus

Poor Gary Mckinnon.

Hacked into a private government system, got caught, and doesn't feel as if there should be any punishment for it.

I'm really torn on this one. The U.S. government lies to us, keeps secrets, and may actually be working on plans to harm us. If what he said he found is true (no evidence beyond his word, if my memory serves me correctly - is there no "cut and paste" function in the UK?), we deserve to know. In that sense, he could be considered a freedom fighter.

But, whether one considers the U.S. government bad or good, governments have a right to operate private systems as they relate to defense and national security, and prosecute those who knowingly violate them. Mckinnon knew what he was doing was illegal, and chose to do it anyway. Had he hacked into a hospital database and began collecting private medical information, or hacked into a credit card company to review people's purchasing habits, we would be outraged. It is not hard for me to understand the government's anger on this one, despite the fact that the information he claims to have seen should be in the public arena. It is a tough issue.

He better thank his lucky stars he is from the UK, because I could see the Bush administration pushing for a charge of "treason" if he were from the U.S. - and we all know what that could mean.

I don't really worry about his future though. Given the crime, if he cooperates with the U.S. government, chances are he could walk away with no jail time whatsoever, or a short sentence with legal wrangling that would only last a few years. He is now too high profile to kill, and chances are, someone out in Hollywood is just waiting to buy his story - if not Hollywood, Baliwood, or somewhere - he will end up getting paid in the end.

"Hacked into a private government system, got caught, and doesn't feel as if there should be any punishment for it."

Mis-representing the facts is the best that you can do is it, historycircus??

This is not the issue whatsoever. Gary's position is not that there shouldn't be any punishment for it; it is that the alleged criminal activity took place on British soil and if he were to be charged with a criminal offence it should be under British law in a British court room. There is absolutely no justification for extraditing him to a foreign country to face "justice" there instead of being tried in the country in which the alleged offence occurred.

The Extradition Act 2003 does not require the prosecution (the American authorities, essentially) to provide any evidence against UK citizens at their hearing. That is, there is no longer any requirement for prima facie evidence. This violates centuries' worth of principles of law and civil and human rights.

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

The Extradition Act 2003 constitutes treason by the British authorities - favouring the demands of foreign powers over the rights of British citizens.
The act came into force on January 1st 2004 BUT it was made retroactive (which is a highly unsual move) to make it apply to Gary McKinnon among others. Making a law retroactive also violates centuries' worth of legal principles & civil/human rights, etc.



"Had he hacked into a hospital database and began collecting private medical information, or hacked into a credit card company to review people's purchasing habits, we would be outraged."

This statement is simply an attempt to muddy the waters. He did not do either of these things and they are completely different in nature to what Gary was doing (and I suspect you mention these two examples to evoke some righteous indignation in anyone reading your post - to have that indignation associated with Gary).
The government, however, continuously does these things for the reasons you described - and yes, the public should be outraged by it!


"He better thank his lucky stars he is from the UK, because I could see the Bush administration pushing for a charge of "treason" if he were from the U.S. - and we all know what that could mean."

He has actually been threatened with being 'fried' by the US authorities. In Britain his actions would have gotten him (if found guilty) six months' community service. In America he is facing 70 years in prison - and he has been threatened with being 'fried'. This alone - the considerable mismatch in punishment and the threat to his life - should have been enough to prevent any question even arising of Gary being extradited. But then the British authorities are committing treason so we shouldn't expect anyone to actually be trying to serve justice here, should we?

[murnut]

Haha,,,surely The Ghost has never misrepresented the facts.

it is that the alleged criminal activity took place on British soil

The damage took place in America

they are completely different in nature to what Gary was doing

Not really...hacking for what ever reason is wrong.

When the ufo community justifies these illegal actions, it is no different than any group justifying it's illegal actions.

He has actually been threatened with being 'fried' by the US authorities.

Now who is evoking some righteous indignation?????

[TheGhost]

Originally Posted by murnut

Haha,,,surely The Ghost has never misrepresented the facts.


The damage took place in America




Not really...hacking for what ever reason is wrong.

When the ufo community justifies these illegal actions, it is no different than any group justifying it's illegal actions.



Now who is evoking some righteous indignation?????

"Now who is evoking some righteous indignation?????"
I'm talking about legal consequences for criminal activities. We do not have the death penalty in Britain (except for treason - so the people who supported the Extradition Act 2003 are skating on pretty thin ice). The point being that when it is threatened our normal legal procedure is to not allow the extradition to go ahead. Normal legal procedures have long since been thrown out the window in Gary McKinnon's case, though.


"The damage took place in America"
This is irrelevant. The alleged crime took place in another country.


"hacking for what ever reason is wrong"
There you go again with your childish, naive argument that legal things are good and moral and illegal things are bad and immoral.
The examples historycircus cited are substantially different to what Gary did.


"it is no different than any group justifying it's illegal actions"
Do you think Nelson Mandela should still be in prison for terrorism? I could go on with other examples but I would like an answer to this particular one.


Do you think the actions of the Nazis or Communists were okay because they were legal?


If the US government made it illegal to even ask questions about UFOs/ETs would you stop asking because your government 'knows best'?

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"Now who is evoking some righteous indignation?????"
I'm talking about legal consequences for criminal activities. We do not have the death penalty in Britain (except for treason - so the people who supported the Extradition Act 2003 are skating on pretty thin ice). The point being that when it is threatened our normal legal procedure is to not allow the extradition to go ahead. Normal legal procedures have long since been thrown out the window in Gary McKinnon's case, though.

Gary is not charged with the death penalty.

I posted the charges, and the corresponding penalties.

Did you read it?

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"
"The damage took place in America"
This is irrelevant. The alleged crime took place in another country.

Cyber criminals can no longer claim this protection, just as foreign drug dealers cannot. The precedent has been set.

Gary's alleged crime took place in America. That is where the supposed damage occurred.

If Gary had sold drugs legal in the UK ,but illegal in the US, over the internet , to America only, where did the crime take place?

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"
"hacking for what ever reason is wrong"
There you go again with your childish, naive argument that legal things are good and moral and illegal things are bad and immoral.
The examples historycircus cited are substantially different to what Gary did.

I won't resort to your level of name calling, but instead, ask you to provide an example of moral hacking, other than Gary's.

Not a hypothetical one, and provide a link.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"
"it is no different than any group justifying it's illegal actions"
Do you think Nelson Mandela should still be in prison for terrorism? I could go on with other examples but I would like an answer to this particular one.

He did his time

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"
Do you think the actions of the Nazis or Communists were okay because they were legal?

Those that stood up accepted the consequences.

Gary and his supporters have not.

Understand the difference?

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"
If the US government made it illegal to even ask questions about UFOs/ETs would you stop asking because your government 'knows best'?

No, but I would accept the consequences for doing what I thought was right.

Those that claim moral superiority, back up their claims with truth, not lies.

Lies from Gary and or his supporters.

Gary faces the death penalty.
Gary faces military tribunal.
Gary faces 70 years.
Gary faces Guantanamo.

The ufo community is generally regarded by the mainstream public as a bunch of kooks.

The ufo community is it's own worst enemy when it supports illegal activity.

Gary's case only reinforces this perception....and I reserve the right to speak out against vigilantism.