Poor Gary Mckinnon

[murnut]

Originally Posted by sleepingnomore

I'm not looking for an argument but if you have any links I'd appreciate reading them, because the only news I've heard on this matter is outside the US.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...ciTech_4306168



Brit Hacker Loses U.S. Extradition Appeal
LONDON, July 30, 2008(AP) Some call it the biggest hack of military computers; perhaps it was just a big embarrassment.

Gary McKinnon — accused of breaking into military and NASA computers in what he claims was a search for UFOs, allegedly causing nearly $1 million in damage — has lost his appeal for extradition to the United States.

McKinnon, 42, an unemployed computer administrator, allegedly broke into 97 computers belonging to the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Defense from a bedroom in a north London home.

His attacks between 2001 and 2002 allegedly shut down the Army district responsible for protecting Washington, and cleared logs from computers at the Naval Weapons Station Earle in New Jersey that tracks the location and battle-readiness of Navy ships.

That last attack, coming immediately after the Sept. 11, knocked out the station's entire network of 300 computers. NASA and privately owned computers also were damaged, prosecutors said, putting the total cost of his online activities at $900,000.

At the time of his indictment, prosecutor Paul McNulty said McKinnon pulled off "the biggest hack of military computers ever — at least ever detected."

In his defense, McKinnon, known online as SOLO, said he was trying to expose security weaknesses and uncover evidence of UFOs.

"I was a man obsessed," McKinnon wrote on The Guardian newspaper's Web site last year, describing a year spent trying to break into U.S. military systems: eight hours a day at a computer in his girlfriend's aunt's house while unkempt, drinking beer and smoking marijuana.

In interviews, he claimed that his hacking uncovered photographic proof of alien spacecraft and the names and ranks of "non-terrestrial officers."

Prosecutors accuse him of deliberately trying to intimidate the U.S. government by tearing through their networks. They pointed to a note written by McKinnon — and left on an Army computer — attacking U.S. foreign policy as "akin to government-sponsored terrorism."

"It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year," he wrote. "I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels."

McKinnon was caught in 2002 after some of the software used in the attacks was traced back to his girlfriend's e-mail account. The U.S. sought his extradition, a move his lawyer Claire Anderson claimed Wednesday was motivated by the government's desire to "make an example" of a man who humbled officials in Washington by hacking into their systems using off-the-shelf office software and a dial-up modem.

Aspects of American cyber-security had been shown up as "really shameful," with some computers not even password-protected, said Graham Cluley, a security consultant with Sophos PLC.

He said the United States appeared to be pursuing McKinnon in an effort to flexing its legal muscle to the hacking community, which has watched the case with interest.

"The overriding message is: You shouldn't mess with American government and military computers, particularly right after Sept. 11," Cluley said.

McKinnon's lawyers had hoped to hold any trial in Britain, saying he could be dragged before a military tribunal or even end up at Guantanamo Bay.

In their appeals, they said McKinnon was warned by U.S. officials that he would not be allowed to serve any part of his sentence in Britain unless he agreed to cooperate with his extradition. That, they argued, amounted to an unlawful threat and abuse of process.

Not so, Britain's House of Lords said Wednesday. Lord Brown, writing for Britain's highest court, said plea bargaining could only be called an abuse of process "in a wholly extreme case."

"This is far from being such a case," he said.

While the decision exhausts McKinnon's legal options in Britain, Anderson said she would appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. She said British authorities had agreed to keep McKinnon in Britain for at least two weeks to allow his lawyers to prepare their application.

"If that fails, then it's off to jail in America for 60 years," McKinnon told the British Broadcasting Corp. "Rapists and murderers and real terrorists get less."

Should McKinnon be extradited, he would face trial in Virginia and New Jersey on eight charges of computer fraud.

Each charge potentially carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. However, U.S. sentencing guidelines would likely recommend a much lighter sentence.

[martian31v]

murnut do you have a problem with following simple logic? i'll try to keep it as simple as possible for you. only cause i like you

BASIS FOR FREEDOM OF EXISTENTIAL INFORMATION
PREMIS 1. ALL HUMANS ARE CREATED EQUAL.
PREMIS 2. EXISTENTIAL INFORMATION/KNOWLEDGE GIVES ADVANTAGE TO THE KNOWER. (I.E. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER)

CONCLUSION 1. ALL EXISTENTIAL INFORMATION/KNOWLEDGE SHOULD BE EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE TO ALL HUMANS.

CONCLUSION 2. GARY IS JUSTIFIED IN HIS SEARCH FOR EXISTENTIAL INFORMATION.

IF AGREE THEN SEND ARGUMENT TO MR PODESTA AT http://change.gov/page/s/contact

IF NOT, THEN PLEASE IDENTIFY A FALSE PREMISE OR FAILURE OF PRIMES LEADING TO CONCLUSION

[murnut]

Originally Posted by martian31v

murnut do you have a problem with following simple logic? i'll try to keep it as simple as possible for you. only cause i like you

BASIS FOR FREEDOM OF EXISTENTIAL INFORMATION
PREMIS 1. ALL HUMANS ARE CREATED EQUAL.
PREMIS 2. EXISTENTIAL INFORMATION/KNOWLEDGE GIVES ADVANTAGE TO THE KNOWER. (I.E. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER)

CONCLUSION 1. ALL EXISTENTIAL INFORMATION/KNOWLEDGE SHOULD BE EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE TO ALL HUMANS.

CONCLUSION 2. GARY IS JUSTIFIED IN HIS SEARCH FOR EXISTENTIAL INFORMATION.

IF AGREE THEN SEND ARGUMENT TO MR PODESTA AT http://change.gov/page/s/contact

IF NOT, THEN PLEASE IDENTIFY A FALSE PREMISE OR FAILURE OF PRIMES LEADING TO CONCLUSION

Your logic is flawed, and is not based in reality of what actually is, and what can actually be.

Fairy tales, just like many insider "releases"

Ever wonder why they target the ufo community only?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

UFO vigilantism hurts the serious research.

Interesting that vigilantism has been a huge failure.

Ya know why?

Vigilantes are not taken seriously

[martian31v]

Originally Posted by murnut

Your logic is flawed, and is not based in reality of what actually is, and what can actually be.

Fairy tales, just like many insider "releases"

Ever wonder why they target the ufo community only?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

UFO vigilantism hurts the serious research.

Interesting that vigilantism has been a huge failure.

Ya know why?

Vigilantes are not taken seriously

interesting how my logic is flawed, but you dont even address one of my points. our reality is based on what "can be". our reality is based on uncertainty, thus our reality is based on what CAN BE. quantum physics 101. if your going to debate my argument, then address the points. but you can't so you'll continue to spout nonsense. and i'll continue to correct you.

[NancyV]

Originally Posted by martian31v

murnut do you have a problem with following simple logic? i'll try to keep it as simple as possible for you. only cause i like you

BASIS FOR FREEDOM OF EXISTENTIAL INFORMATION
PREMIS 1. ALL HUMANS ARE CREATED EQUAL.
PREMIS 2. EXISTENTIAL INFORMATION/KNOWLEDGE GIVES ADVANTAGE TO THE KNOWER. (I.E. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER)

CONCLUSION 1. ALL EXISTENTIAL INFORMATION/KNOWLEDGE SHOULD BE EQUALLY ACCESSIBLE TO ALL HUMANS.

CONCLUSION 2. GARY IS JUSTIFIED IN HIS SEARCH FOR EXISTENTIAL INFORMATION.

IF AGREE THEN SEND ARGUMENT TO MR PODESTA AT http://change.gov/page/s/contact

IF NOT, THEN PLEASE IDENTIFY A FALSE PREMISE OR FAILURE OF PRIMES LEADING TO CONCLUSION

Premis 1: All humans are not created "equal" on the physical plane
Premis 2: Yes, knowledge can be advantageous

Conclusion 1: "Shoulds" don't work. Life is not fair. Humans always have and always will keep secrets in order to gain advantage. That's just reality.

Conslusion 2: Gary doesn't need a justification to do anything, he only has to accept the consequences of his actions if he's caught by someone who is able to control him because they are stronger or badder than he is.

[martian31v]

Originally Posted by NancyV

Premis 1: All humans are not created "equal" on the physical plane
Premis 2: Yes, knowledge can be advantageous

Conclusion 1: "Shoulds" don't work. Life is not fair. Humans always have and always will keep secrets in order to gain advantage. That's just reality.

Conslusion 2: Gary doesn't need a justification to do anything, he only has to accept the consequences of his actions if he's caught by someone who is able to control him because they are stronger or badder than he is.

hi nancy. your logic is flawed. all humans are created equal. this is a foundational assumption that is necessary to avoid discrimination/oppression. inside your assumption that "humans are not created equal on the physical plane", anyone or group could justify their oppression over another. hence, equal rights. this is basic human rights stuff. human rights 101.

"shoulds" do work as natural extensions of premises. again logic 101. conclusions follow premises. your "humans always will..." and "that's just reality" is literal nonsense. the fact that there are injustices doesn't make it right. i made a rational justification for gary's actions. you respond with subjective nonsense. inside your ABSURD reasoning "... accept the consequences of his actions because he was caught by someone who is stronger" ARE YOU KIDDING???? your reasoning has just supported every fascist dictatorship that has oppressed humans for eons. and you've done so with the same level of intelligence, NONE. i would first go take logic 101, so you could actually debate from an objective perspective. then maybe you could respond appropriately to the argument.

[NancyV]

Originally Posted by martian31v

hi nancy. your logic is flawed. all humans are created equal. this is a foundational assumption that is necessary to avoid discrimination/oppression. inside your assumption that "humans are not created equal on the physical plane", anyone or group could justify their oppression over another. hence, equal rights. this is basic human rights stuff. human rights 101.

"shoulds" do work as natural extensions of premises. again logic 101. conclusions follow premises. your "humans always will..." and "that's just reality" is literal nonsense. the fact that there are injustices doesn't make it right. i made a rational justification for gary's actions. you respond with subjective nonsense. inside your ABSURD reasoning "... accept the consequences of his actions because he was caught by someone who is stronger" ARE YOU KIDDING???? your reasoning has just supported every fascist dictatorship that has oppressed humans for eons. and you've done so with the same level of intelligence, NONE. i would first go take logic 101, so you could actually debate from an objective perspective. then maybe you could respond appropriately to the argument.

My dear Martian,

You are entirely too emotional in your responses. Because you want things to be a certain way does not make it so. Perhaps you could point out to me any time throughout history when man has not perpetrated injustices upon other men? My reasoning supports no one group and no one person, it supports the truth. I am relatively unattached to needing things to be different than they are, so unlike you, I have a very minor agenda of "shoulds".

Your "foundational assumption" that all men are created equal is just that, an assumption. It's a lovely sounding assumption, but not based in reality. Of course all souls are equal, ultimately, but all bodies are not equal and the minds that control the bodies are also not equal. Perhaps another look into the actual meaning of the word "equal" would be advisable. As far as "human rights", that's a creation of man. We have the "rights" that we are able to envision, take for ourselves and retain, either by intelligence or enforcement. The last time I looked, man was still enmeshed in the survival of the fittest scenario here on the earthplane.

Nowhere in what I said in my previous post was there even a hint that I thought "injustices were right", in fact, for you to come to that conclusion shows me that your vested interest in having your theories upheld contributes to your inability to see reality. In addition, saying that my statements "support every fascist dictatorship" is patently absurd in the extreme. I don't "support" anything in my statements or outlook, I observe reality and state it as it is.

Emotionality and attachment blind one to truth, and personal attacks on another because you feel threatened are a great weakness. It appears to me that you are probably relatively young and inexperienced, but do not despair, you have lots of time, in fact you have eternity.

Nancy

[martian31v]

Originally Posted by NancyV

My dear Martian,

You are entirely too emotional in your responses. Because you want things to be a certain way does not make it so. Perhaps you could point out to me any time throughout history when man has not perpetrated injustices upon other men? My reasoning supports no one group and no one person, it supports the truth. I am relatively unattached to needing things to be different than they are, so unlike you, I have a very minor agenda of "shoulds".

Your "foundational assumption" that all men are created equal is just that, an assumption. It's a lovely sounding assumption, but not based in reality. Of course all souls are equal, ultimately, but all bodies are not equal and the minds that control the bodies are also not equal. Perhaps another look into the actual meaning of the word "equal" would be advisable. As far as "human rights", that's a creation of man. We have the "rights" that we are able to envision, take for ourselves and retain, either by intelligence or enforcement. The last time I looked, man was still enmeshed in the survival of the fittest scenario here on the earthplane.

Nowhere in what I said in my previous post was there even a hint that I thought "injustices were right", in fact, for you to come to that conclusion shows me that your vested interest in having your theories upheld contributes to your inability to see reality. In addition, saying that my statements "support every fascist dictatorship" is patently absurd in the extreme. I don't "support" anything in my statements or outlook, I observe reality and state it as it is.

Emotionality and attachment blind one to truth, and personal attacks on another because you feel threatened are a great weakness. It appears to me that you are probably relatively young and inexperienced, but do not despair, you have lots of time, in fact you have eternity.

Nancy

my dear nancy,
you are entirely correct about my emotions and the negative affect they played in my communications with you and murnut. one of these days i will learn that lesson. i do apologize to you both for my tone and language.

from one perspective your views on "shoulds" is appealing and admirable. not an easy perspective to live from, especially in this world. but from another perspective "shoulds" or "intentions" are the means toward creating a new realty, and a necessary aspect of our free will. if i am not satisfied with my/our reality, then i am inherently required to attempt a change. "should", then becomes the responsibility of those who seek change.

the fact that man has consistently perpetrated injustices, should not lead to the conclusion that those injustices are inevitable. we live in a reality that is constantly changing, and we have the ability to participate in that process of change. therefor, "should" is a necessary aspect of our reality. "should" is the impetus of creation.

the assumption that all humans are created equal is a necessary assumption in the process of defining human rights. if we do not start with that fundamental assumption, then it is possible for any group or individual to claim superiority over another. the fact that some humans already claim superiority over others does not negate the necessity of this assumption. if all souls are created equal and all human body's maintain a soul, then all human body's are created equal. this is true despite our actions to the contrary.

if that premise holds and you agree to the 2nd premise (sequestering of information leads to inequity of knowlege leading to inequity of power), then a conclusion of an inherent right to pursue existential information seems to naturally follow.

if interested in continuing debate, i promise to remain unattached and void of childish insults. i do apologize. thank you for calling me out, martian

[NancyV]

Originally Posted by martian31v

my dear nancy,
you are entirely correct about my emotions and the negative affect they played in my communications with you and murnut. one of these days i will learn that lesson. i do apologize to you both for my tone and language.

from one perspective your views on "shoulds" is appealing and admirable. not an easy perspective to live from, especially in this world. but from another perspective "shoulds" or "intentions" are the means toward creating a new realty, and a necessary aspect of our free will. if i am not satisfied with my/our reality, then i am inherently required to attempt a change. "should", then becomes the responsibility of those who seek change.

the fact that man has consistently perpetrated injustices, should not lead to the conclusion that those injustices are inevitable. we live in a reality that is constantly changing, and we have the ability to participate in that process of change. therefor, "should" is a necessary aspect of our reality. "should" is the impetus of creation.

the assumption that all humans are created equal is a necessary assumption in the process of defining human rights. if we do not start with that fundamental assumption, then it is possible for any group or individual to claim superiority over another. the fact that some humans already claim superiority over others does not negate the necessity of this assumption. if all souls are created equal and all human body's maintain a soul, then all human body's are created equal. this is true despite our actions to the contrary.

if that premise holds and you agree to the 2nd premise (sequestering of information leads to inequity of knowlege leading to inequity of power), then a conclusion of an inherent right to pursue existential information seems to naturally follow.

if interested in continuing debate, i promise to remain unattached and void of childish insults. i do apologize. thank you for calling me out, martian

You're very cute, Martian. I'm still laughing!

I have found it much easier to live in this world after I stopped worrying about "shoulds" so much. Yes, I agree that intentions are powerful and are useful in creating a new reality. But how is it free will for you if my intentions for you are that you comply with my version of reality? You may seek to change the reality of others but if they don't accept your version of what they should do or how they should be, so what? We can put out our desires for the reality we envision, but if others reject it, perhaps that is absolutely not in alignment with the lessons they are to learn at this time in their journey. If there is resistance, then it's often a good time to back off. We will not all agree about everything and that's the way it is.

I cannot make an absolute statement that all violence is bad or unjust since man has perpetrated "injustices" since time immemorial. I'm not even sure about the absolute meaning of "unjust", since it might be completely JUST that someone perpetrates violence upon another for some reason that I'm not aware of. Perhaps it might be a karmic thing, or a pre-arranged scenario agreed upon before incarnating, or many other things I can't even imagine. It seems to be part of the human equation, how can that be inherently wrong in all cases without knowing the bigger picture?

Just because I don't like people treating others cruelly does not mean that I can or should eradicate cruelty from the world, nor is it my place to tell everyone else that they "SHOULD" be peaceful and loving when I really don't know the ultimate purpose of incarnation on this earth plane. It may very well be a part of YOUR purpose that you will tell everyone else what they should do, according to your present knowledge and level of awareness, but I find that the older I get, the fewer absolute convictions I have when it comes to telling others how they should live their lives (except for my children!).

In my opinion this is a solo trip, a singular challenge. The less time I spend worrying about changing everyone else the more time I can spend thinking about what I do, what pleases me, how I should act and what I think is right for me to do and say. It's also not of concern to me what others think about me. Basically it's not any of my business what your opinion of me is. Life is so much simpler this way. I rarely get offended because I don't care what you or anyone else thinks. Sure, I care a huge amount about this whole trip here on the earthplane and the entire great journey, but I have one belief that I allow myself, and that is... that it's all working out exactly the way it's supposed to. Why?? Because it IS.

Since your basic premise is fatally flawed - that all humans are created equal - your subsequent logic is flawed. We each have built in effects from and limitations of knowledge, awareness, physical health, motivations, genetics, karmic baggage, gender, race, geographical location, parents, etc. We live in a duality. On the one hand we are unlimited and all loving. On the other hand we have many limitations, inequalities, and we are capable of hate and great violence. Until we merge our "lower self" with our "higher self" we are affected by both, and we may be affected by both even after leaving this incarnation. It depends on where your particular soul/mind resides. Yes, we are all equal as we approach the Source, but as separated parts of the Source we are not equally endowed.

I do agree that "sequestering of information leads to inequity of knowledge and inequity of power". So what? That's the way it is here. Everyone does it! It is not merely the purview of "evil government". If we were meant to know everything we would have telepathic abilities much more developed than we do. But we can and do easily fool each other and lie to each other on a daily basis in every aspect of our lives.

As far as "rights", I still maintain that the only rights you have are the ones you take for yourself and keep for yourself. We do not have the power to grant "rights" to others. I do not agree that "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It sounds good, I LIKE it, but I don't believe it. It was agreed upon by men who signed it, after some pretty heated debates, but even many of them didn't believe we were created equal, certainly they didn't all believe that Blacks or Indians were equal. Thomas Jefferson himself stated that he believed blacks were inherently inferior to whites, and he also included Indians in that opinion.

I like my husband's response when asked if he's a racist. He says "I'm not a racist, I hate everyone equally!" His point being that you can find just as many vile specimens of human beings in any race and either gender. I'm sure the humor of that will escape those who think one must always be "loving".

The government has just as much "right" to hide information as you have a "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We don't LIKE that the government keeps so many secrets and the government doesn't like it when people like Gary McKinnon try to hack into those secrets. Since Gary is not as strong as his government in the UK, they may force him to go to the US and accept the punishment for his actions. The US government is more powerful than Gary, so he can either fight, flee, or accept his fate for doing something ill advised with possibly harsh consequences.

What I really don't get is why the vast majority of members who have posted in this thread don't understand that Murnut is correct. He is not hostile or argumentative, although he is continuing to respond. Mainly it is his detractors who don't like anyone disagreeing with them because they believe THEY are inherently RIGHT! He has presented a logical summation of the circumstances and of Gary's choices. On the other hand we have a bunch of zealots who seem to need an iconic figure to help them in their fight for truth, justice and against the evil government. One of the funniest things I see is that Gary doesn't make a very good icon. He's a 42 year old stoner who was stupid enough to hack into the US Military with a dial up dinosaur of a computer and leave threats!!! If he didn't know about any potential consequences then he's also an ignoramus. It's not like he's a Ghandi or a Martin Luther King!

But each will have their own causes and passions. I think the whole thing is very entertaining.

Nancy

[murnut]

Thank-you Nancy

[Orion Morris]

Nancy and murnut... I am do not think that I am right... I am not sure if what Gary did even helps our situation...

What I am saying is that him breaking the "law" in the manner that he did doesnt diserve incarceration... I feel bad for him... Jail or prison is no place for anybody...

[martian31v]

thank you nancy. much better to be "very cute" than an arsss.

if your intentions for me are for me to comply with you, then the responsibility or freedom of will lies with me to intend and create something different or accept your intentions. in the same sense, if TPTB intend for our compliance to their end, then it is up to the free will of the individual to intend for something else or comply. i don't seek to change the reality of others. i seek to change my own reality that i share willingly with others. if others don't accept my intentions, then they are free to put forth their own intention. i think that is the co-creative process at work. i agree with your views on resistance, but not as an absolute. in terms of this discussion (freedom of information), i think that humanity is the natural resistance to TPTB intentions of secrecy. they are the ones who will inevitably yield to the increasing resistance of the people's inherent need to know.

i agree completely with your points on the difficulties of telling "everyone else" what they "should" do. i'm a minimalist at heart and i think we can apply a minimalist approach to our notions and expectations of what should or shouldn't be. BUT, if we are going to co-exist on this earth-plane, then we are forced to live by some rules and/or structure. i believe we are in the process of determining that structure, and everyone has a say. because of the vast differences in opinions of what "should" be, we should keep it simple.

from one perspective it is a "solo trip", but from another it is collaberative. we cannot escape the affect of our neighbor. if my neighbors dog poops on my lawn, then i am obligated to tell my neighbor what he "should" do with his dog. i also am not concerned with what others think. i am concerned with what others do, because those actions affect me. TPTB can think they are superior to me, but they cannot commit actions that oppress my will. if they do, then i will act out against them. and, i am just in opposing my oppressors, because my will is free.

the fact that we have differences, does not negate the fact that we are created equal. no matter if you're a materialist that believes we come from mindless energy, or a spiritualist that believes we are souls incarnate from a mindful source, we are inherently equal. if you believe everything including us comes from a mindful source and that source is ONE, then we are also ONE. therefor, we are created equal in the mind or structure of ONE. we are equal parts of the whole. no differences experienced in duality can negate this logic. the fact that we are currently experiencing separation from source does not negate our inherent equality. our inherent equality is not removed from us during separation, it is forgotten. how can our shared place in ONENESS be negated? only thru our collective ignorance. but ignorance of oneness, does not translate into loss of oneness. at our core we are one, and from that core principle we can devise a few basic "shoulds".

you seem to agree with premise 2. and your "that's the way it is", "everyone does it" defense is not going to work against it. i bet that defense doesn't work when your kids use it. the point is not about knowing everything. it is about everyone having equal access to the same information. the fact that our differences will limit some in their ability to interpret and utilize said information, is also not the point. the point is about an equal opportunity for all humans to access information to the best of their ability and in alignment with their free will.

our difference on "rights" is debated in premise 1. i still maintain that our "rights" naturally extend from our core essence. if rights were relegated to the ability of one to take and hold for itself, then we would be forced to accept the determined rights of TPTB. inside your logic it would follow that someone could declare it their right to take your house and family, and keep it for themself. we might not have the power to grant rights to others, but we do have the power to agree on rights that coincide with the whole. and this can be done if we agree on the fact of inherent oneness or equality. i realize this line of thinking is ripped from the declaration, but who, when, and where the logic comes from is not relevant to the argument itself.

do you really believe that the government has just as much right to hide information as you, your children, and the rest of us has a right to life???
Hobbs also tried to argue that might makes right. but history has shown us time and again that might, when forced on the light, only creates a consolidation of power, disalignment, and disturbance to the natural flow of equality and oneness. the survival of the fittest model of governance is antiquated. time for an upgrade. a model of governance based on the simple truth of oneness. no need for iconic figures. much need for simple logic and an agreed upon truth. IF we can agree that we are equals, then we should be able to agree on our shared freedom for information. i guess it is very entertaining.

[NancyV]

Well, Martian, it looks to me like if we got together and talked this over we would probably have a lot of fun arguing the fine points but would ultimately reach agreement with each other. Great post and aside from a few fine nit-picky points which might be largely semantics, I really can't fault you in your reasoning. You're a pretty smart guy (if you're a man) so let's have a hug and call it a tie, or a win/win!

Nancy

[martian31v]

Originally Posted by NancyV

Well, Martian, it looks to me like if we got together and talked this over we would probably have a lot of fun arguing the fine points but would ultimately reach agreement with each other. Great post and aside from a few fine nit-picky points which might be largely semantics, I really can't fault you in your reasoning. You're a pretty smart guy (if you're a man) so let's have a hug and call it a tie, or a win/win!

Nancy

i love win/win experiences. thank you again for correcting my attitude.

[NancyV]

Originally Posted by Orion Morris

Nancy and murnut... I am do not think that I am right... I am not sure if what Gary did even helps our situation...

What I am saying is that him breaking the "law" in the manner that he did doesnt diserve incarceration... I feel bad for him... Jail or prison is no place for anybody...

I don't think what Gary did helps our situation, Orion, nor did it help him or his family. It brought them a lot of grief and hassles. I also feel badly for him and his family. I wish he hadn't been so stupid as to have done what he did.

He probably does have mental problems (aspergers) in addition to being a stoner, or he would have thought more about the possible consequences. Maybe they will take that into account, but probably not. Since he turned down the semi-reasonable offers of a plea bargain and continued pushing it, they are probably more inclined than ever to make an example of him.

I hope it turns out well for him because I don't see that it will do much good to put him in prison. Hopefully he's at least smart enough to never do this again and he is already reaping the consequences of his actions.

Nancy

[freekatz]

Originally Posted by murnut

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...ciTech_4306168



Brit Hacker Loses U.S. Extradition Appeal
LONDON, July 30, 2008(AP) Some call it the biggest hack of military computers; perhaps it was just a big embarrassment.

Gary McKinnon — accused of breaking into military and NASA computers in what he claims was a search for UFOs, allegedly causing nearly $1 million in damage — has lost his appeal for extradition to the United States............


Should McKinnon be extradited, he would face trial in Virginia and New Jersey on eight charges of computer fraud.

Each charge potentially carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. However, U.S. sentencing guidelines would likely recommend a much lighter sentence.

Murnut, I don't mean this in an offensive way but are you just trying to wind everyone up? This is an open forum and everyone is free to post opposing views and debates but, so far in this post I haven't seen you write anything of any relevance other than to keep repeating that Gary broke the law and two wrongs don't make a right. Do you honestly feel so passionately about that? Are you seriously basing your whole argument on the above feeble quote which means absolutely nothing in reality?? Do you sit back and chuckle as you watch people jumping into the fray, knowing that it will go nowhere as you present no real argument?

Seeing as you feel so strongly about the sanctity of man-made laws let me ask you this:

When the French Resistance were hiding people from the Nazis were they wrong for breaking the laws that were in effect at that time (whether it was an occupying army or not, laws are laws)?

Was Ghandi wrong for practicing civil disobedience against the British and deserving of the full punishment of the law?

If the US government declares martial law and some of the soldiers and police refuse to round civilians up should they be punished for defying laws that have been enacted at that time?

I'm just trying to understand your logic, do you feel laws are laws and should never be broken or is it ok in instances when it doesn't harm anyone and may even be of benefit, do you see any grey areas? I'm sure it could be argued that my examples are not valid as I am not quoting actual written laws but I'm sure you get the gist.

All the best to you, I do come in peace

[murnut]

Originally Posted by freekatz

Murnut, I don't mean this in an offensive way but are you just trying to wind everyone up? This is an open forum and everyone is free to post opposing views and debates but, so far in this post I haven't seen you write anything of any relevance other than to keep repeating that Gary broke the law and two wrongs don't make a right. Do you honestly feel so passionately about that? Are you seriously basing your whole argument on the above feeble quote which means absolutely nothing in reality?? Do you sit back and chuckle as you watch people jumping into the fray, knowing that it will go nowhere as you present no real argument?

Seeing as you feel so strongly about the sanctity of man-made laws let me ask you this:

When the French Resistance were hiding people from the Nazis were they wrong for breaking the laws that were in effect at that time (whether it was an occupying army or not, laws are laws)?

Was Ghandi wrong for practicing civil disobedience against the British and deserving of the full punishment of the law?

If the US government declares martial law and some of the soldiers and police refuse to round civilians up should they be punished for defying laws that have been enacted at that time?

I'm just trying to understand your logic, do you feel laws are laws and should never be broken or is it ok in instances when it doesn't harm anyone and may even be of benefit, do you see any grey areas? I'm sure it could be argued that my examples are not valid as I am not quoting actual written laws but I'm sure you get the gist.

All the best to you, I do come in peace

I speak out against the govt all the time...legally.

However if I felt it necessary to break the law I would do so gladly.

And look forward to my day in court. Not try to weasel out of it.

Ghandi accepted his punishment....get it?

French resistance and Gary?

Those folks put their lives on the line...Gary cant even bear to face trial.

When and if the US declares martial law, I am ready for it...thank-you.

You obviously have read my posts...but have no understanding of the meaning.

Some will get it, others never will

[Orion Morris]

I seriously doubt that you are ready for martial law....
Have you ever been to jail buddy? I doubt it! You cannot say that because Gary is avoiding trial that he is not facing the music...

Hackers go to jail for alot longer than 5 years all the time...

Their was a guy here not that long ago that just got 17 years...

You talk big.... but you have no idea...

Quit picking fights with everybody... who cares what you think about Gary... He is in a totally different boat than you... drop it...

Originally Posted by murnut

I speak out against the govt all the time...legally.

However if I felt it necessary to break the law I would do so gladly.

And look forward to my day in court. Not try to weasel out of it.

Ghandi accepted his punishment....get it?

French resistance and Gary?

Those folks put their lives on the line...Gary cant even bear to face trial.

When and if the US declares martial law, I am ready for it...thank-you.

You obviously have read my posts...but have no understanding of the meaning.

Some will get it, others never will

[murnut]

Originally Posted by Orion Morris

I seriously doubt that you are ready for martial law....

Your opinion

Originally Posted by Orion Morris

Have you ever been to jail buddy? I doubt it! You cannot say that because Gary is avoiding trial that he is not facing the music...

Yes, I can...Heroes stand up, cowards don't.

Originally Posted by Orion Morris

Hackers go to jail for alot longer than 5 years all the time...

Their was a guy here not that long ago that just got 17 years...

Got a link?

Originally Posted by Orion Morris

You talk big.... but you have no idea...

Quit picking fights with everybody... who cares what you think about Gary... He is in a totally different boat than you... drop it...

Who is picking a fight?

Me?

I am entitled to post my opinion.

I guess you are one of those pro-censorship types

UFO vigilantes hurt the credibility of the UFO community at large....the serious researchers like Leslie Kean, and Stanton Friedman.

That's my opinion, and I could care less about who agrees with me.

If y'all want me to stop posting, stop replying to me.....or ask the mods to ban me.

But I will have been banned for my opinion

[Orion Morris]

Here is your link... couldnt find the exact one... but these should make my point...
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38012/118/
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10138

What have you been to jail for... For some reason I dont believe you because I have never met anybody who has done time who feels like it is no big deal... "Just face the music." you sound like a kid...

No I am not pro cencorship... but it is "wrong to break laws." remember...

I would never report you or ask to have you banned...

Originally Posted by murnut

Your opinion



Yes, I can...Heroes stand up, cowards don't.



Got a link?



Who is picking a fight?

Me?

I am entitled to post my opinion.

I guess you are one of those pro-censorship types

UFO vigilantes hurt the credibility of the UFO community at large....the serious researchers like Leslie Kean, and Stanton Friedman.

That's my opinion, and I could care less about who agrees with me.

If y'all want me to stop posting, stop replying to me.....or ask the mods to ban me.

But I will have been banned for my opinion

[murnut]

Originally Posted by Orion Morris

Here is your link... couldnt find the exact one... but these should make my point...
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38012/118/

He has not been sentenced yet...neither has Gary.

I am willing to bet he receives a suspended sentence.

Originally Posted by Orion Morris

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10138

With credit for time served and good behavior, Salcedo will be eligible for release in the fall of 2011.

2 to 3 years....try again...and maybe next time read the story first...hehe.

Do you really believe Gary will get more time than an actual thief?

He won't...but even a thief cut his losses and plead out.

Originally Posted by Orion Morris

What have you been to jail for... For some reason I dont believe you because I have never met anybody who has done time who feels like it is no big deal... "Just face the music." you sound like a kid...

No I am not pro cencorship... but it is "wrong to break laws." remember...

I would never report you or ask to have you banned...

I never said I had been sentenced to jail.

What law have I broken?

I apparently am continually being misunderstood here....or maybe many feel there is nothing wrong with vigilantism.

Once you cross the line, just how do you decide where to stop?

Hacking, theft by deception, blackmail...all victimless right?

Will this help serious research?

NO

[Orion Morris]

You must not understand that you will never be the same person once they have taken your life from you... Not very many people get good behavior... plus you will never be able to function in society again... nobody diserves this for a victimless crime.. Nobody!

[murnut]

Originally Posted by Orion Morris

You must not understand that you will never be the same person once they have taken your life from you... Not very many people get good behavior... plus you will never be able to function in society again... nobody diserves this for a victimless crime.. Nobody!

The victim was the US military, and US tax payers.

Gary brought this on himself, and only has himself to blame for prolonging it.

If he did not want to go to jail, he should have not been hacking.

[Orion Morris]

Wow.. So when martial law breaks out and they throw you in a 6-8 cell because you broke one of the B.S. laws that they have in place I will say to you... good.. you diserve it.. you were asking for it... Its not the laws fault... or the governments fault... it is your fault for showing signs of resistance...

What is your problem? You have been fighting with people on this for days and days! You would think that you would find something else to pass your time by now.

Originally Posted by murnut

The victim was the US military, and US tax payers.

Gary brought this on himself, and only has himself to blame for prolonging it.

If he did not want to go to jail, he should have not been hacking.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by Orion Morris

Wow.. So when martial law breaks out and they throw you in a 6-8 cell because you broke one of the B.S. laws that they have in place I will say to you... good.. you diserve it.. you were asking for it... Its not the laws fault... or the governments fault... it is your fault for showing signs of resistance...

What is your problem? You have been fighting with people on this for days and days! You would think that you would find something else to pass your time by now.

When people reply to my posts...I respond...I am not fighting...merely explaining my opinion to those having difficulty understanding it.

There are plenty of BS laws I disagree with...but the way to fix them is not hacking.

I oppose UFO vigilantism.

What is so hard to understand about that?