Poor Gary Mckinnon

[Ali Quadir]

Originally Posted by Ampgod

The thing I just can't understand here is that people defend his actions of hacking. That is wrong. Period. Gary's actions were illegal. What he found is secondary to his initial wrong doing. Not that what he found is not important. It is very important. But he was wrong to hack anything and he knows it.

First of all, look up the definition of hacking.. Hacking is not illegal, it's slang for making something work for you that is not inclined to do so automatically. I'm a computer programmer. When we're in a hurry we hack things all the time... It's completely legal.. Just a little messy sometimes.

Since there was no protection on those computers and they were wide open you could even argue if Gary was in fact hacking... He made unauthorized access.

What do you guys think?

I think there's a difference between 6 months community service illegal and 60 years in a foreign jail, possibly Guantanamo illegal...

In real life: if there is no lock or notice keeping you out. Then you cannot determine if access is indeed illegal. And therefore it is not.. The owner of a real world site should make an effort to protect his site with a fence, a lock, or signs.

In cyberspace the laws are not different. Otherwise, if you enter a random IP address in your internet explorer. Then you might unknowingly break the law by making an "Unauthorized access"... In fact everyone on the web could trick you into doing so... If there is no attempt to protect the site by (for example) setting a password or placing a sign.. How would you know? You would not and therefore connecting to an open port with an appropriate client is not considered a crime.

It happened to me. I downloaded an SSH client. (Like a remote dos box) I ran it, and it had a default address. I figured it was to test drive the client like happens so often. So I connect. Next thing I know I have this screen which says that "connecting to the service" without authorization is a crime... Which I had apparently already committed...

How was I supposed to know that hitting connect would be a crime? Nobody told me. And it wasn't a crime.. To commit a crime you should at least know it is a crime. Or reasonably be able to suspect your act to be a crime.

Needless to say I disconnected. Trying to break a password I can understand IS a crime. Someone wants me to stay out, so I stay out. I'm not stupid.. But if they had not put a password there I would have effectively done a McKinnon on who knows whose site it was... And since I expected an open site to test the ssh client on I might not even have figured it out.


If I understand correctly it was not his "unauthorized access" that they used against him but the false claims that he damaged the computers he was on for a minimum of 5000 pounds... They should have asked the prosecutors to prove this. But since they were USA national security guys they did not have to prove it. Their word was enough... They say he "Intended" to damage those computers. And so that was the crime... His claims that he intended no such thing were not even heard..

The whole illegal access thing wasn't an issue to the prosecution... I think they didn't want to advertise that they didn't actually protect those computers. So they sued him on the damages but never really proved that there were in fact damages.

All you people talking about hacking and illegal access isn't even relevant to this case.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by Ali Quadir

First of all, look up the definition of hacking.. Hacking is not illegal, it's slang for making something work for you that is not inclined to do so automatically. I'm a computer programmer. When we're in a hurry we hack things all the time... It's completely legal.. Just a little messy sometimes.

Since there was no protection on those computers and they were wide open you could even argue if Gary was in fact hacking... He made unauthorized access.



I think there's a difference between 6 months community service illegal and 60 years in a foreign jail, possibly Guantanamo illegal...

In real life: if there is no lock or notice keeping you out. Then you cannot determine if access is indeed illegal. And therefore it is not.. The owner of a real world site should make an effort to protect his site with a fence, a lock, or signs.

In cyberspace the laws are not different. Otherwise, if you enter a random IP address in your internet explorer. Then you might unknowingly break the law by making an "Unauthorized access"... In fact everyone on the web could trick you into doing so... If there is no attempt to protect the site by (for example) setting a password or placing a sign.. How would you know? You would not and therefore connecting to an open port with an appropriate client is not considered a crime.

It happened to me. I downloaded an SSH client. (Like a remote dos box) I ran it, and it had a default address. I figured it was to test drive the client like happens so often. So I connect. Next thing I know I have this screen which says that "connecting to the service" without authorization is a crime... Which I had apparently already committed...

How was I supposed to know that hitting connect would be a crime? Nobody told me. And it wasn't a crime.. To commit a crime you should at least know it is a crime. Or reasonably be able to suspect your act to be a crime.

Needless to say I disconnected. Trying to break a password I can understand IS a crime. Someone wants me to stay out, so I stay out. I'm not stupid.. But if they had not put a password there I would have effectively done a McKinnon on who knows whose site it was... And since I expected an open site to test the ssh client on I might not even have figured it out.


If I understand correctly it was not his "unauthorized access" that they used against him but the false claims that he damaged the computers he was on for a minimum of 5000 pounds... They should have asked the prosecutors to prove this. But since they were USA national security guys they did not have to prove it. Their word was enough... They say he "Intended" to damage those computers. And so that was the crime... His claims that he intended no such thing were not even heard..

The whole illegal access thing wasn't an issue to the prosecution... I think they didn't want to advertise that they didn't actually protect those computers. So they sued him on the damages but never really proved that there were in fact damages.

All you people talking about hacking and illegal access isn't even relevant to this case.

He hasn't even gone to trial yet, and obviously, you have not read the indictment.

Gary could get off completely, if he goes to trial.

60 years and Guantanamo are a complete exaggeration.

No "hacker" has ever gotten more than 10 years, and 95% are sentence to under 5.

Gary and some of his supporters have deliberately stretched the limits of the truth to play the sympathy card.

Originally Posted by Ali Quadir

How was I supposed to know that hitting connect would be a crime? Nobody told me. And it wasn't a crime.. To commit a crime you should at least know it is a crime. Or reasonably be able to suspect your act to be a crime.

So your support is based on the idea that Gary didn't know he was commiting a crime when he went DELIBERATELY looking into gov computers for a left open door?

So by that logic if I go out of my house one day and forget to lock the door, though its closed, that gives you the okay to walk in and rob me because I did not have a sign on my door saying keep out?

[anonypony]

The real questions here are

* What was the crime?
* And what is a PROPORTIONATE punishment?

Expanding on zorgon's analogy, Gary did no robbing, he just snooped around.
He did not murder anyone, nor did he cause anyone to become a target.

On the flip side if you did indeed leave your front door open and got robbed, you will most likely be treated by the police as the criminal, rather then the victim. No action whatsoever would be taken to investigate, find the robber, or pursue them in any way shape or form.

Gary admits to snooping around... Nothing more!

But snooping around is not enough to extradite someone, so we see an allegation of damage unfolds miraculously to the value of what would be sufficient to extradite someone.

Since the new one sided extradition agreement between the UK and USA, no evidence needs to be provided of an alleged crime, before the person is shipped off.

After the EU human right court refused to hear Gary's case, USA prosecutors admitted in a statement to the press, that the alleged damage would be very hard to prove, while at the same time a change to an existing law is introduced in the USA, where by damage is not needed to be proven to go after and hit the likes of Gary with the full wrath of the law. (Just a coincidence I am sure...)

Can we trust the USA to punish this crime PROPORTIONATELY?

What do you all think?

[murnut]

Originally Posted by anonypony

Can we trust the USA to punish this crime PROPORTIONATELY?

What do you all think?

What "hacker" has served more than 5 years?

One or two?

Most are out in less than 3.

But feel free to correct me, with facts.

[bill7907]

Originally Posted by murnut

What "hacker" has served more than 5 years?

One or two?

Most are out in less than 3.

But feel free to correct me, with facts.

This is not a normal hacker case.
He saw very confidential documents that are probably responsible for all this secrecy.
They would put him far from everyone so that he doesn't spread the truth concerning that issue.
You are corrected.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by bill7907

This is not a normal hacker case.
He saw very confidential documents that are probably responsible for all this secrecy.
They would put him far from everyone so that he doesn't spread the truth concerning that issue.
You are corrected.

Ha....his story is all over every paper in the UK. Secrecy indeed!

Do you really think the people that run the cover up are this stupid?

If he had really had seen anything worth covering up, you would have never had heard his name ever.

Gary I think has exaggerated his claims.

I doubt the "Secret Space Program" files or UFO files are on/were on networks able to be accessed.

The Greatest secrets in the history of the world, enforced by the best cover up ever.....were left on a open network?

Not believable!

[anonypony]

Perhaps they are using this to further their plans to control the internet. If they can show that outsiders like Gary with minimal skills can do what they claim he did... it would give them leverage to place heavy restrictions on the internet

I tend to agree with you (Zorgon) all heartedly.

It has been my personal view right from the word go, that controlling the internet was always the main reason for this case. Other aspects of this case may serve a purpose too, but restricting and controlling the internet was the main aim.

I say 'was' because I think whoever is behind the original master plan, underestimated how long it will take to get Gary and since he was first caught till now, the control and surveillance over the internet has changed beyond recognition. (The agenda achieved without Gary’s case)

One thing is clear - when there is an 'agenda' - it always manifests one way or another, and those who are behind it, never relay on just one avenue to achieve their aim.

I also hold the view that 9 out of 10 they tell us well in advance what the plan is, but very few take note of those nuggets when they appear a mid the white noise the media constantly generates.

To illustrate both points I can recall a televised speech by bush senior it was the evening of 911 and the speech was before some business association. He said amongst other things related to the events of that morning: The internet as you know it will change! It can not stay free as it is. We will control and restrict it. Easy to ignore such statements when they are made a mid the biggest mass mind control exercise ever unlashed on the people of this earth... Nevertheless the agenda was clearly stated wide in the open.

Did the internet change? I can share with you that since I made contact with Bill and Kerry regarding this case, my phone, email and skype are all taped! Now, I have nothing to hide, as far as I know supporting the ply for justice of another human being is no crime, yet the initial feeling I experienced was that of violation and intimidation... The outcome of such actions is a clear violation of ones privacy and freedom of speech and designed to intimidate one to stop their activities. So yes from my perspective the internet has changed!

Take this forum and thread, the ‘paid to post’ thought police is here in full force - keep reiterating the same points ad infinitum, no matter what the discussion is about, just like well media trained politicians, when interviewed by the likes of Snow and Paxman who insist on getting answers to their questions...

Another thing that supports the view that this case aims to further their plans to control the internet, is the fact that Gary did not tell the media what he has seen until the USA ordered his extradition in 2004, some 4 years into the case. Viewing this case from that perspective also explains why this case started with such hype, branded by the USA as the ‘biggest ever hack’ or as ‘cyber terrorism’ with great damage alleged to later on being played down as time passes and the agenda being fulfilled anyway, too many questions are raised and finger pointing towards torture and abuse of human rights, law changes, shorter sentence promises, and on and on.

The reason why Gary would never get a fair trial is perfectly illustrated by posting such as Murnat’s :

“Gary installed software....he "changed the locks". Not exactly "no harm" If you read the decisions which Gary has lost there are multiple assurances of fairness. Gary has had due process. And Gary's side has only been interested in distorting the facts.”

The truth can’t be further from those statements. The facts are: if you do indeed read the House of Lords decision, you will see the word ‘alleged’ before any accusation, because that is precisely what they are UN PROVEN ALEGATIONS! Presenting it like Murnat does here, where what is alleged is presented as proven fact, when in fact the allegations has never been proven, or even discussed in all the legal coming and going to date. That is the real distortion not to mention libellous...

Through years of research it is my observation that beyond the existence of conspiracies lay a vast sea of incompetence, which we tend to underestimate... As I understand it, it only takes one user having his/her computer unprotected and plugged to both networks at the same time, for someone like Gary to have open access to hundreds of un protected machines and users who incompetently think they are secure by the fact that their network is separate from the public internet.

[murnut]

Apony,

Not exactly. Gary has has due process in his extradition process.

He has lost his appeals.

Just how many do you think are in on the "Get Gary" campaign?

Yes, he has not had his day in court yet.

But he has done nothing except try to avoid it.

I hope he gets off, I really do.

I just hope he does not further damage the credibility of the Real heroes along the way.

Paid to post my ass

[TheGhost]

"Gary has has due process in his extradition process"

Really?? Because the Extradition Act 2003 does not require the US authrorities to provide the British courts with ANY evidence before demanding the extradition of a British citizen.
This is part of the fast-track extradition "treaty" between the US & Britain which was only signed by the British side and not the Americans (so not really a treaty, then).
The Extradition Act 2003 constitues TREASON by the British government, in my humble opinion, as it favours the interests of a foreign government over the interests of British citizens.

Would you like it if you faced extradition to Britain with no evidence of an alleged crime being presented by British authorities at your court hearing?

How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence? The claim of a crime is now enough for British citizens to be extradited to the US.

Originally Posted by murnut

Apony,

Not exactly. Gary has has due process in his extradition process.

He has lost his appeals.

Just how many do you think are in on the "Get Gary" campaign?

Yes, he has not had his day in court yet.

But he has done nothing except try to avoid it.

I hope he gets off, I really do.

I just hope he does not further damage the credibility of the Real heroes along the way.

Paid to post my ass

[Antaletriangle]

Recent links to Gary's plights,nov 5th news:
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articl...y-mckinnon.htm
British politicians are coming out in support of self-confessed hacker Gary McKinnon to prevent him serving a jail term in the US.

McKinnon faces imminent extradition to the US to face trial for allegedly hacking more than 73,000 computers belonging to the US Army, Navy and Department of Defense.

David Burrowes, shadow justice minister, has urged home secretary Jaqui Smith to halt McKinnon's extradition unless the US allows him to serve any sentence in Britain.

cont.on link above.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9539057,00.htm
New song by gary mckinnon,'Only a fool':
Gary McKinnon, the British hacker, has been gaining support from politicians for his fight against extradition to the US, but the UFO obsessive has also won fans amonst MySpacers.

McKinnon has managed to storm the MySpace charts with a tune of his own creation called Only A Fool.

The song reached number five in the MySpace video chart within 48 hours of being posted.

"Don't stop don't say it don't matter," sings McKinnon, "If it ain't easy, try harder; Only a fool would let it go."

Hit the arrow button to hear what must be one of the most unexpected tunes of the year.


http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/ne...975/view.phtml

[murnut]

I understand what you are saying, but extradition does not mean conviction.

Gary should NOT have admitted his guilt, but he did.

Gary, I am sure you will feel better when this is behind you.

Get it over with, and go back to having a life.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"Gary has has due process in his extradition process"

Really?? Because the Extradition Act 2003 does not require the US authrorities to provide the British courts with ANY evidence before demanding the extradition of a British citizen.
This is part of the fast-track extradition "treaty" between the US & Britain which was only signed by the British side and not the Americans (so not really a treaty, then).
The Extradition Act 2003 constitues TREASON by the British government, in my humble opinion, as it favours the interests of a foreign government over the interests of British citizens.

Would you like it if you faced extradition to Britain with no evidence of an alleged crime being presented by British authorities at your court hearing?

How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence? The claim of a crime is now enough for British citizens to be extradited to the US.

[Orion11]

hi mur, well said.

and your page was really green?? lol
ive never seen that before here....

[murnut]

Originally Posted by Orion11

hi mur, well said.

and your page was really green?? lol
ive never seen that before here....

it was green...bright lime green

[TheGhost]

"extradition does not mean conviction" - he shouldn't even be facing trial in a foreign country!

"Gary, I am sure you will feel better when this is behind you." - he's facing up to seventy (70) years in prison. At what point, specifically, does he put it behind him if he is convicted and sentenced to seventy years??


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

Originally Posted by murnut

I understand what you are saying, but extradition does not mean conviction.

Gary should NOT have admitted his guilt, but he did.

Gary, I am sure you will feel better when this is behind you.

Get it over with, and go back to having a life.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"extradition does not mean conviction" - he shouldn't even be facing trial in a foreign country!

"Gary, I am sure you will feel better when this is behind you." - he's facing up to seventy (70) years in prison. At what point, specifically, does he put it behind him if he is convicted and sentenced to seventy years??


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

The 70 years is exaggerated, 90 % of hacking crimes have sentences below 5 years, most serve less than 2, which is about what Gary was offered in a plea agreement, WHICH HE REFUSED.

Gary should not have admitted his guilt, but he did.... and his health has been made worse by the ufo community putting their concerns before Gary's.

They have urged Gary to fight their fight for them.

Shame on them!

They are just as much to blame as anyone for this debacle.

But the ultimate blame lies with Gary himself.

Make a deal Gary, you will feel so much better.

And if you want to improve your chances of a deal in your favor, stop with the insinuations of Guantanamo, torture, and tribunals.

You might catch more flies with honey.

Your offer of vinegar, has obviously not worked.

PC's offer of Danny B and Marcia M to testify in your behalf only serves the agenda of the ufo fringe, and has no legal standing in relation to the charges.

Those who get favorable plea agreements, generally apologize and are contrite.

Those that do this serve less than 18 mos on average.

Please get some competent legal advise.

[TheGhost]

The 70 year possibility is not an exaggeration whatsoever. He found some VERY sensitive information about the US military's capabilities (non-terrestrial officers).

The plea agreement he was offered was not legally binding for the US authroities, i.e. it wasn't worth the paper it was written on, therefore it was not an offer he could accept.

He admitted to "hacking" (and I use that term loosely) but he did not admit to causing damage to the computers, which is what the US authorities are charging him with (lo-and-behold, precisely $5,000 worth of damage per computer - the minimum necessary to bring charges).

Gary is not the one who is making insinuations. The prosecutor said he wanted to see him "fry" - insinuating the death penalty (or perhaps an acccident?).


And I ask you yet again: how does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence?

Originally Posted by murnut

The 70 years is exaggerated, 90 % of hacking crimes have sentences below 5 years, most serve less than 2, which is about what Gary was offered in a plea agreement, WHICH HE REFUSED.

Gary should not have admitted his guilt, but he did.... and his health has been made worse by the ufo community putting their concerns before Gary's.

They have urged Gary to fight their fight for them.

Shame on them!

They are just as much to blame as anyone for this debacle.

But the ultimate blame lies with Gary himself.

Make a deal Gary, you will feel so much better.

And if you want to improve your chances of a deal in your favor, stop with the insinuations of Guantanamo, torture, and tribunals.

You might catch more flies with honey.

Your offer of vinegar, has obviously not worked.

PC's offer of Danny B and Marcia M to testify in your behalf only serves the agenda of the ufo fringe, and has no legal standing in relation to the charges.

Those who get favorable plea agreements, generally apologize and are contrite.

Those that do this serve less than 18 mos on average.

Please get some competent legal advise.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

The 70 year possibility is not an exaggeration whatsoever. He found some VERY sensitive information about the US military's capabilities (non-terrestrial officers).

The plea agreement he was offered was not legally binding for the US authroities, i.e. it wasn't worth the paper it was written on, therefore it was not an offer he could accept.

He admitted to "hacking" (and I use that term loosely) but he did not admit to causing damage to the computers, which is what the US authorities are charging him with (lo-and-behold, precisely $5,000 worth of damage per computer - the minimum necessary to bring charges).

Gary is not the one who is making insinuations. The prosecutor said he wanted to see him "fry" - insinuating the death penalty (or perhaps an acccident?).


And I ask you yet again: how does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence?

First you hire a competent attorney, then at the trial you put on a defense.

But if he was smart, he would plead.

That is what most caught hackers do.



Garys lawyers have exhausted his legal options in fighting the extradition charges.

How many appeals has he had? 3? 4? Is everyone out to get Gary?

Think about that.


You my friend, have been sold on the hype.

But if he is actually foolish enough to go to trial, then his lawyers will put on the best defense he can....which is what exactly?

The evil PtB defense?

The Danny B defense?


In fact Gary has no defense other than to ask for proof of the damage....since he already admitted the hacking.

The anti American statements did not help either.

Guess what, they have the a paper trail of repair receipts.

Then you may say that all of the evidence is faked.

But where is the evidence that supports Gary innocence?

Even if he really saw what he says he saw, and he had evidence, this would only be evidence of his guilt.

I still maintain that this info Gary claims to have seen, has never been on open servers.

[TheGhost]

"Is everyone out to get Gary?" - no, the US military/Shadow Government is out to get him and they are exerting pressure on others so that they can get their hands on him.
Asking the question "Is everyone out to get Gary?" suggests you think my arguments mean there must be a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people, or something. Obviously this is not the case.
You appear to be resorting to the arguemnet that if I believe he is being treated unfairly or even illegally it must be because I think it is being done by a vast network of people and it is unthinkable that a vast network of people could/would be out to get him and so I must be wrong. This is a very poor argument.

You seem to think that he should/deserves to be in this situation.
1) the alleged crimes occurred on British soil and so if any charges are brought it should be under British law in a British court,
2) the Extradition Act 2003 is essentially a treasonous document - selling out the rights of British citizens in favour of a foreign government.
He should not be faced with extradition to and trial in a foreign country, whatsoever.

"You my friend, have been sold on the hype." - I've been sold on the hype?!? You do not (or cannot) give me any counter arguments to the points I have made and so you resort to ridiculous statements like that.

"if he is actually foolish enough to go to trial" - it's foolish to defend oneself, is it?? Wow, that is a very big statement. I wonder what kind of justice would be served if you created the laws of the land!

"The evil PtB defense? The Danny B defense?" - there is a provision in law that says, essentially, that if the authorities have gone to excessive lengths (disproportionate to the alleged offence) to pursue the alleged criminal then the jury can find the defendant not guilty even if they think he did commit the crime. It is a way of telling the authorities that the jury thinks their money can be better spent (catching real criminals)! So, to some extent, yes, the "evil PtB" defence could be employed.
Because the authorities have pursued Gary so long and arduously the jury may very well be interested in the content of what he found as it is undoubtedly the reason why the authorities want him so badly. If Gary had hacked into a toy store's database of merchandise no-one would ever have heard his name. It could therefore be a factor in his defence.
When the jury hear about what he found, possibly corroborated by Dan Burisch/Marcia McDowell, it may persuade them to find him not guilty as a way of sending a message to the "evil PtB" that they want the UFO/free-energy information released to the public.

"paper trail of repair receipts" - are you serious?? Seriously, are you serious??

"where is the evidence that supports Gary innocence?" - defendants are not required to prove their innocence. What country/legal system are you in??

"Even if he really saw what he says he saw, and he had evidence, this would only be evidence of his guilt." - it would be evidence that he is telling the truth about hacking into the systems and finding some very interesting information about off-planet activity (which is something he has already admitted). It would NOT be evidence of causing precisely $5,000 worth of damage per computer (which is what he is being charged with).

"I still maintain that this info Gary claims to have seen, has never been on open servers." - why do you asert this? Who are you? Were they 'open' servers, if it is necessary to hack into them?


Murnut, are you really unable to figure out on your own that the charges against him are trumped up? $5,000 worth of damage per computer - the minimum necessary to bring charges. Not $6,500 here, $7,000 there; no, $5,000 each. Think about it.

I'll ask you once again (with regard to his extradition hearing): how does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide any evidence?

Originally Posted by murnut

First you hire a competent attorney, then at the trial you put on a defense.

But if he was smart, he would plead.

That is what most caught hackers do.



Garys lawyers have exhausted his legal options in fighting the extradition charges.

How many appeals has he had? 3? 4? Is everyone out to get Gary?

Think about that.


You my friend, have been sold on the hype.

But if he is actually foolish enough to go to trial, then his lawyers will put on the best defense he can....which is what exactly?

The evil PtB defense?

The Danny B defense?


In fact Gary has no defense other than to ask for proof of the damage....since he already admitted the hacking.

The anti American statements did not help either.

Guess what, they have the a paper trail of repair receipts.

Then you may say that all of the evidence is faked.

But where is the evidence that supports Gary innocence?

Even if he really saw what he says he saw, and he had evidence, this would only be evidence of his guilt.

I still maintain that this info Gary claims to have seen, has never been on open servers.

[freekatz]

If all this information that Gary accessed is so top secret and hidden for our own "good" , shouldn't the people whose job it was to protect this vitally "dangerous for the public" information be the ones being prosecuted? For their utter incomptence? Surely these people should be the ones on trial...not Gary.

[murnut]

One, I have no opinion on British law...from the house of lords decision I read, it seemed reasonable that Gary was treated fairly.

I have countered your opinions, with facts.

Gary put himself in the situation he faces.

I said that you have been sold on the hype because you quoted it.

Hackers generally plead out or face a longer sentence.

He admitted his guilt.

The ufo defense is laughable in the real world.

No "real" attorney would recommend something so stupid.

Yes the US military has evidence.

Yes, I misspoke, Gary is innocent until proven guilty.

He just has admitted to the hacking but not the damage.

I have not seen the evidence, but I have read about it.

Seems convincing to me

US military secrets are not hooked up to the internet...in my opinion.

In my opinion, Gary saw nothing

The $5000 number per unit means little to me until the evidence is presented, but that is the rumored amount.

I have no opinion on the UK extradition law...the house of lords seems okay with it though.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"Is everyone out to get Gary?" - no, the US military/Shadow Government is out to get him and they are exerting pressure on others so that they can get their hands on him.
Asking the question "Is everyone out to get Gary?" suggests you think my arguments mean there must be a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people, or something. Obviously this is not the case.
You appear to be resorting to the arguemnet that if I believe he is being treated unfairly or even illegally it must be because I think it is being done by a vast network of people and it is unthinkable that a vast network of people could/would be out to get him and so I must be wrong. This is a very poor argument.

You seem to think that he should/deserves to be in this situation.
1) the alleged crimes occurred on British soil and so if any charges are brought it should be under British law in a British court,
2) the Extradition Act 2003 is essentially a treasonous document - selling out the rights of British citizens in favour of a foreign government.
He should not be faced with extradition to and trial in a foreign country, whatsoever.

"You my friend, have been sold on the hype." - I've been sold on the hype?!? You do not (or cannot) give me any counter arguments to the points I have made and so you resort to ridiculous statements like that.

"if he is actually foolish enough to go to trial" - it's foolish to defend oneself, is it?? Wow, that is a very big statement. I wonder what kind of justice would be served if you created the laws of the land!

"The evil PtB defense? The Danny B defense?" - there is a provision in law that says, essentially, that if the authorities have gone to excessive lengths (disproportionate to the alleged offence) to pursue the alleged criminal then the jury can find the defendant not guilty even if they think he did commit the crime. It is a way of telling the authorities that the jury thinks their money can be better spent (catching real criminals)! So, to some extent, yes, the "evil PtB" defence could be employed.
Because the authorities have pursued Gary so long and arduously the jury may very well be interested in the content of what he found as it is undoubtedly the reason why the authorities want him so badly. If Gary had hacked into a toy store's database of merchandise no-one would ever have heard his name. It could therefore be a factor in his defence.
When the jury hear about what he found, possibly corroborated by Dan Burisch/Marcia McDowell, it may persuade them to find him not guilty as a way of sending a message to the "evil PtB" that they want the UFO/free-energy information released to the public.

"paper trail of repair receipts" - are you serious?? Seriously, are you serious??

"where is the evidence that supports Gary innocence?" - defendants are not required to prove their innocence. What country/legal system are you in??

"Even if he really saw what he says he saw, and he had evidence, this would only be evidence of his guilt." - it would be evidence that he is telling the truth about hacking into the systems and finding some very interesting information about off-planet activity (which is something he has already admitted). It would NOT be evidence of causing precisely $5,000 worth of damage per computer (which is what he is being charged with).

"I still maintain that this info Gary claims to have seen, has never been on open servers." - why do you asert this? Who are you? Were they 'open' servers, if it is necessary to hack into them?


Murnut, are you really unable to figure out on your own that the charges against him are trumped up? $5,000 worth of damage per computer - the minimum necessary to bring charges. Not $6,500 here, $7,000 there; no, $5,000 each. Think about it.

I'll ask you once again (with regard to his extradition hearing): how does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide any evidence?

[Ali Quadir]

Originally Posted by zorgon

So by that logic if I go out of my house one day and forget to lock the door, though its closed, that gives you the okay to walk in and rob me because I did not have a sign on my door saying keep out?

You're making a strawman here... If you leave your door open and I walk in, notice you're not at home and walk out, without robbing you then I did not commit a crime. Even if while Inside I look at the photo album on your desk...

Theres a difference between ethical behavior and committing crimes. It would not be ethical of me. But it would technically not be a crime.

If I ROB you then I commit a crime... If I take something that belongs to you that is not inside your house then I would commit a crime. The fact that there is a house around the object makes no difference.

Originally Posted by murnut

No "hacker" has ever gotten more than 10 years, and 95% are sentence to under 5.

Gary and some of his supporters have deliberately stretched the limits of the truth to play the sympathy card.

Foreigners were kidnapped and trialled by the US some were even subjected to torture. People who committed less of a crime than McKinnon. Without any hearings. If I were the British I'd demand some very reliable guarantees for this man's welbeing and fair trial.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by Ali Quadir

You're making a strawman here... If you leave your door open and I walk in, notice you're not at home and walk out, without robbing you then I did not commit a crime. Even if while Inside I look at the photo album on your desk...

Theres a difference between ethical behavior and committing crimes. It would not be ethical of me. But it would technically not be a crime.

If I ROB you then I commit a crime... If I take something that belongs to you that is not inside your house then I would commit a crime. The fact that there is a house around the object makes no difference.



Foreigners were kidnapped and trialled by the US some were even subjected to torture. People who committed less of a crime than McKinnon. Without any hearings. If I were the British I'd demand some very reliable guarantees for this man's welbeing and fair trial.

Gary installed software....he "changed the locks".

Not exactly "no harm"

You refer to enemy combatants, this is not how Gary has been charged.

If you read the decisions which Gary has lost there are multiple assurances of fairness.

Gary has had due process.

He has gotten terrible legal advice.

And Gary's side has only been interested in distorting the facts.

I understand how they feel, but understand how it hurts the overall credibility of UFO researchers who have never broken the law and are doing everything they legally can do to bring about disclosure.

Originally Posted by murnut

I understand how they feel, but understand how it hurts the overall credibility of UFO researchers who have never broken the law and are doing everything they legally can do to bring about disclosure.

This may in fact be the KEY to this whole issue... Had Gary been US citizen it would not have gone this far... but he was a foreigner... As such they can use this to make a bigger issue of it...

Add that to these three items...

1) Bill HR 1955, passed in the House

2) Pentagon: The internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy "weapons system".
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=7980

2a) US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm

3) Internet presents web of security issues
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/websecurity/

Perhaps they are using this to further their plans to control the internet. If they can show that outsiders like Gary with minimal skills can do what they claim he did... it would give them leverage to place heavy restrictions on the internet