Poor Gary Mckinnon

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Why don't you just watch them all? I'm not really interested in a review from you; I've seen them and I have my own opinion about them.

This is for your education and enlightenment, murnut. What are you afraid of, your current world view collapsing (where everything legal is moral and good and everything illegal is immoral and bad, lol, and the govenment is good and just wants what's best for you)?

Current world view collapsing?

That happened long ago.

I will watch all the video's..(already seen the masked guy) just as soon as you read all of my 5800 posts at OMF...fair enough?

You don't know me or what my world view is, until you do.

To make it easier on you, just read this thread

http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/i...ead=288&page=1

I started it a year ago.

But this discussion is off topic here.

If you want to start a thread about what kind of legal system you want, be my guest.

Better hurry though, time is short here

[Antaletriangle]

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday December 2 2008 12.21 GMT
Hacker in final showdown to avoid extradition to USBriton accused of biggest hack in US military history wins delay in judicial review

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...adition-hacker

The British man accused of hacking into US military computers will have his final showdown in the UK courts next month.

After almost four years of fighting extradition to the US as a result of what prosecutors have called "the biggest military computer hack of all time", Londoner Gary McKinnon will face a judicial review conducted by the high court on January 20.

McKinnon – who used the online name Solo – is accused of hacking into computers belonging to the Pentagon, Nasa and US armed forces in raids conducted between 2001 and 2002.

Prosecutors say he shut down thousands of machines and caused up to $700,000 worth of damage, while the 42-year-old claims he was searching for evidence of UFOs.

Over the course of the case, defence lawyers argued that McKinnon will face unduly harsh punishment for his actions and should instead face trial in the UK, since the alleged hacking attacks were conducted from a house in north London.

By the time the decision is made, it will be almost seven years since McKinnon ended his activities. During that time a succession of arguments have been made against his removal – including that he faces up to 60 years in prison or detention at Guantánamo Bay, and that he should receive leniency because he suffers from Aspberger's syndrome.

Such protestations have so far proved unsuccessful, however, with a string of decisions against him, including rulings by the law lords and the home secretary. McKinnon's last chance to avoid removal to the US will come in next month's judicial review.

Prosecutors acting for the government argued that McKinnon's review should take place today but his lawyers succeeded in pushing it back until the new year.

The news brought cheer to some campaigners who see the date as an auspicious sign. Coinciding with the inauguration of Barack Obama as president, supporters at the Free Gary website suggested the date could be the equivalent of "waving a couple of fingers" at the Bush administration.

In recent months campaigners – including former home secretary David Blunkett have argued that McKinnon should be tried in the UK because of his medical condition.

His supporters are hopeful that they can sway the final judgment, particularly after Gordon Brown spoke about the case publicly for the first time last week and hinted that McKinnon may not end up in a US jail.

During prime minister's questions last week, Brown was asked about McKinnon's situation and said that existing conventions would enable him to serve any prison sentence in Britain, rather than in the US.

"The UK and the US are signatories to the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, which enables a person found guilty in the United States of America to serve their sentence in the UK," he told MPs.

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.

[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.

[TheGhost]

Originally Posted by murnut

Current world view collapsing?

That happened long ago.

I will watch all the video's..(already seen the masked guy) just as soon as you read all of my 5800 posts at OMF...fair enough?

You don't know me or what my world view is, until you do.

To make it easier on you, just read this thread

http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/i...ead=288&page=1

I started it a year ago.

But this discussion is off topic here.

If you want to start a thread about what kind of legal system you want, be my guest.

Better hurry though, time is short here

I will watch all the video's..(already seen the masked guy) just as soon as you read all of my 5800 posts at OMF...fair enough?

What on earth are you on, dude? Why would anyone want to be educated in all things murnut?? Educating yourself in the machinations of the legal system that you are under would be pretty valuable. Educating myself in all things murnut would not serve any useful purpose.

What do you have against learning about the legal system? Why do you refuse to take it upon yourself to learn how to deflect and defeat their fraudulent activity? It is for your own education and enlightenment.
What education or enlightenment would I gain in reading all 5800 of your posts? Do you consider yourself that important?

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

I will watch all the video's..(already seen the masked guy) just as soon as you read all of my 5800 posts at OMF...fair enough?

What on earth are you on, dude? Why would anyone want to be educated in all things murnut?? Educating yourself in the machinations of the legal system that you are under would be pretty valuable. Educating myself in all things murnut would not serve any useful purpose.

What do you have against learning about the legal system? Why do you refuse to take it upon yourself to learn how to deflect and defeat their fraudulent activity? It is for your own education and enlightenment.
What education or enlightenment would I gain in reading all 5800 of your posts? Do you consider yourself that important?

You made personal statements about me based no knowledge.

This is for your education and enlightenment, murnut. What are you afraid of, your current world view collapsing (where everything legal is moral and good and everything illegal is immoral and bad, lol, and the govenment is good and just wants what's best for you)?

On face value, which is the same that you judge me on, your video's propose the net effect of anarchy.

Try following the advice of those videos, and see how far that "enlightenment" takes you.

[TheGhost]

Originally Posted by murnut

You made personal statements about me based no knowledge.



On face value, which is the same that you judge me on, your video's propose the net effect of anarchy.

Try following the advice of those videos, and see how far that "enlightenment" takes you.

"You made personal statements about me based no knowledge."
I do have some knowledge - we've been arguing for a while, now.


"your video's propose the net effect of anarchy"
They propose not bowing down to a corrupt legal system. There is nothing wrong with having a legal system - but there is something very wrong with maintaining our current, utterly corrupt legal system that RELIES upon deception of the public (the people it is supposed to serve, by the way) in order to operate.

The methods described, of deflecting and defeating 'legal' actions against you, are perfectly lawful.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"You made personal statements about me based no knowledge."
I do have some knowledge - we've been arguing for a while, now.


"your video's propose the net effect of anarchy"
They propose not bowing down to a corrupt legal system. There is nothing wrong with having a legal system - but there is something very wrong with maintaining our current, utterly corrupt legal system that RELIES upon deception of the public (the people it is supposed to serve, by the way) in order to operate.

The methods described, of deflecting and defeating 'legal' actions against you, are perfectly lawful.

Which video describes a better legal system?

I agree that there is room for improvement, but no one ever seems to have a better plan.

Where is this better plan?

[murnut]

For the record, I have no problem with Gary serving his time in Britain, if any.

But would Gary plead out right now based on this?

Say 3 years?

I doubt it

[Kojak]

Originally Posted by murnut

Which video describes a better legal system?

I agree that there is room for improvement, but no one ever seems to have a better plan.

Where is this better plan?

A better plan?? Common sense might work Bro!!!! Gary is being victimised, forget all the legal jargon and so forth. Gary's a decent guy being victimised. Maybe they should concern themselves with their stupid security and move on, spend some money on the homeless, instead of pursuing Gary.

Brinty- the US, UK or your Govt, it's all the same. You can throw the Vatican, Masons etc into the mix, they're all connected to screw us.

[DAYDREAMER]

I just hope that Gary has some more secret info that he is keeping to himself and can have revealed in the future (through someone else that he trusts) if the US govt puts him behind bars, cause he will have nothing to lose then.

[pineal-pilot-in merkabah]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g-1866971.html

[King Lear]

[SteveX]

[no caste]

Gary McKinnon case to be Judicially Reviewed in May. Also about the time of the UK elections. forum link:

Brown abandons No.10
http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=245372

[SteveX]

Originally Posted by no caste

Gary McKinnon case to be Judicially Reviewed in May. Also about the time of the UK elections. forum link:

Brown abandons No.10
http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=245372

That is NOT good. If they ship him over to the USA at that time, Gary's story will be lost in the press.

[no caste]

Originally Posted by SteveX

That is NOT good. If the ship him over to the USA at that time, Gary's story will be lost in the press.

Yeah, could be. Maybe "For no good reason the UK Supreme Court Law Lords also seem unwilling to defend British sovereignty" might be an election issue? I read down the page a bit: Judicial Review for McKinnon, May 25th & 26th 2010. Why is the UK election date wishy-washy? "The next United Kingdom general election is due to take place on or before 3 June 2010, barring exceptional circumstances."

[anonypony]

http://votingformckinnon.ning.com/

You can cast your vote here...

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"You made personal statements about me based no knowledge."
I do have some knowledge - we've been arguing for a while, now.

I don't know you, you don't know me.

I saw a ufo in 73...200 yards, daylight, 30 ft of the ground.

I know the phenomena exists.

What the ufo community denies is accountability for it's own actions.

Misinfo and disinfo comes from both sides.

I say that it should not be present on our side.

It dilutes what we are trying to accomplish....or what we should be trying to accomplish...the scientific study

We can't force disclosure based on lies.

[piers2210]

This is a great thread becuase everyone wants to know what happens to Gary McKinnon, as his case is of great interest on a number of important levels, which don't need repeating here by me.

However, i think the tread has run out of steam until new info comes to light. The best "new info" was posted by Gary's relative (anonypony) on 29th Nov, and antaletriangle on 2nd Dec.

I'm more of a "lurker" ie someone who joined this forum to seek/gather information, and some of what has been posted is disappointing, as it has no purpose in terms of "knowledge gathering" or genuine useful informative opinions - you shouldn't really have to wade through insults etc to get to the good stuff.

Having said that, i appreciate the postings of the ghost and murnut which have had some informative content especially when directed to the legal niceties of the case, and i understand and sympathise with the opinions of subsonik on 25th nov and historycircus on 5th Dec.

Can further postings have genuine informative content? Thats why i joined the forum.

May justice be done (which may not necessarily follow the law precisely) - as a former solicitor i know that the law can be circumvented and deals done - and above all i think and hope the truth will come out. That is why we are here. US tax payers whose money funds the US government activities should have a right to the truth. We UK citizens should hope that our own goverment supports the cause of its own citizens, howsoever and wheresoever that help is required.

Peace and light.

[TheGhost]

"I won't resort to your level of name calling"
I wasn't calling you childish and naive; I was calling your argument childish and naive. Now lets suppose for a moment that you are neither childish or naive: why would an adult make childish and naive arguments? Propaganda, maybe?

Like the Nazis said about propaganda, the more people that you are trying to appeal to the less intelligent the argument must be, i.e. the complexity of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of people you are presenting it to. The internet provides you with an opportunity to reach a lot of people, so as a propaganda merchant (possibly even an asset of the the PTB) your argument is childish, simplistic and naive in nature.


"The precedent has been set."
Where and when, what case(s)? Were these cases criminally contrived like Gary's is? Because if they were they are not setting a precedent, they are simly more examples of corruption in the legal system.


"Gary is not charged with the death penalty"
Gary is not yet in US custody and if he is ever handed over to them anything could happen. If there was no possibility of the death penalty why did the New Jersey authorities involved in the prosecution threaten him with being 'fried'? Are they children making childish threats or are they adults in a position to make their threats a reality?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-of-Lords.html
http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,...331828b,00.htm
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement...9285950,00.htm


Do you think Nelson Mandela should still be in prison for terrorism?
"He did his time"
Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? You wouldn't be trying to duck a question (once again) would you?


Do you think the actions of the Nazis or Communists were okay because they were legal?
"Those that stood up accepted the consequences."
Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? You wouldn't be trying to duck a question (once again) would you? Did those who stood up accept the consequences or were they victims of the consequences i.e. victims of murder by the government?


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."
Why would you accept the 'consequences' for doing what you thought to be right? Why should there be any consequences for you? Why wouldn't you, instead, fight those that are trying to impose consequences on you?

Fundamentally, murnut, why are you so willing to be a slave?
Why are you so unwilling to stand up to corrupt government officials, a corrupt legal system, corrupt police, etc., etc., etc.?

A jack-boot is stamping your face into the dirt and you (willingly it seems) accept it.

[murnut]

You don't get what I have been saying.

Pointless to continue here, I won't be paying.

Good luck to Gary, and to all the UFO vigilantes....and just normal vigilantes like you Ghost.

In the end, most vigilantes are no different than the thugs they despise.

Goodbye Avalon!

I am at OpenMinds, Ghost.

I would be proud if you would join us.

Most in the UFO community vehemently disagree with my stance on Gary.

But what most fail to realize is that they are using the same argument as suicide bombers.

Actions are justified against the govt because they are evil....or because they are withholding are right to know.

No one would believe that these evil govts really don't know themselves