Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

If they were going to take down Gary as hard as they could, he would be dead, and you never would have heard of him.

Yes I pulled that number of the top of my head, but I am right, aren't I?

Gary has not had a trial yet, so no evidence has been presented.

I sympathize with those that say the extradition law is unjust.

My problem is not so much with Gary, but his supporters who see nothing wrong with his actions.

It devalues the serious research done by the real heroes of ufology.

By your reasoning, what Islamic terrorists do is justified, because they believe they are right.

UFO vigilantes bring no credibility to fields that struggles to maintain any in the public eye.

Gary is has made himself sick over this....he was offered 18 mos served in US, 18 mos served in Britain....as part of plea agreement.

He declined

He got terrible legal advice.

Now whose fault is that?

Add it up folks, the tale Gary spins does not add up.

King Lear, you are most kind.

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

"If they were going to take down Gary as hard as they could, he would be dead, and you never would have heard of him."

This isn't necessarily true, murnut. Assassination is not always the best solution to their problems. They have people arrested on trumped up charges routinely. They also have people sent to mental hospitals routinely. Discrediting people in a very public way (using their pawns in the corporate media) is also done routinely.
Assassination is not the only tool they use. They pick whichever 'deterent' is the most appropriate for whatever situation they are dealing with.

Also, I think the East German authorities split people into four psychological categories when deciding how to deal with dissent. The punishment was different for each category and tailored to the psychology of the people in that category.

Murdering Gary (in an obvious way) would simply act as confirmation that he was telling the truth.

If they lock him up for 70 years they can say it was because of the hacking, not because of what he claims to have seen.

However, I am concerned that they might murder him in a not-so-obvious way, i.e. the plane crashing into the Atlantic as he is being transported over there. It would just be called a 'tragic accident', probably, and no-one would ever suspect the plane was crashed deliberately just to kill one man (except for paranoics like me! lol).

If you don't believe the PTB would kill a plane-load of people in this manner I suggest you research Lockerbie, JKF Jr, Senator Wellstone, the airliner that crashed in New York or New Jersey in November 2001, that Egyptian Airlines crash which happened, I think, in early 2001, and so on.

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

As for the 'offer' Gary received from the US authrities, I have answered this point before. The offer was unsigned - so not worth the paper it was written on - it was not a legally binding offer. It was most likely just made to tempt him over into their hands and once they had him they would do whatever they wanted.

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

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

I understand what you are saying, but it is not reality as far as I am concerned.

Gary has no proof of anything...so why is he a threat?

Your using an argument, that contradicts itself when approached logically.

Maybe....just maybe, it is what it is.

A hacker who got caught, who has had terrible legal advice.

Gary's supporters and you unfortunately play the fear card, when it suits your "theories"...but when I play along, you decide it is not valid.

UFO vigilantism will not help the cause, has not helped the cause.

Making excuses doesn't help either...in my opinion

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

Murnut... you are crazy... why do you care if we support Gary so much? You have been arguing on this thread for weeks!

It is wrong for Gary to be treated like a terrorist!

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

Because when the ufo community supports criminal actions, it damages the credibility of the of serious work that is being done.

We need more credibility...not less.

And by the way...Gary has not been charged as a Terrorist....although the notes he left indicate malicious intent.


Again...The ufo community needs credibility, not vigilantes.

Is my point so hard to understand?

Poor more nuts
 

Thought police, or paid to post, or both as I have questioned many many times before.

If it smells like a fish, most likely it is a fish.

:bash::mad3::boxing::gun_bandana::mf_popeanim:
Shouting loud doesn't make one right, more importantly as evident here, dose not inspire others to listen.
:gathering:

The word bulling comes to mind....:wall: Anyone who bothered to read the whole of this thread, can't claim I didn't give it a very good try...:fisch::wub2:

:biker::arrow: but hey many other fish to fry...

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

Sticks and Stones

But thanks for playing anyway.

This is about the soul of the ufo community....which is being manipulated.

I won't sit back and say nothing when I see it falling apart right before my eyes.

If one cares about the soul, one tries to save it.

Granted that I can't do it by myself, and I blame myself for not being as clear as i wanted to be.

But when I see posts from apony and ghost such as the above, I realize I have for the most part failed in expressing myself.

Did I reach anyone?

Anyway...I will be gone when Avalon goes pay to post...no one is going to gift me...hehe....but I will be at OMF as always.

Gentle people, I wish you all well

Andy

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

Huh???



"Your using an argument, that contradicts itself when approached logically."

Please explain how my argument contradicts itself when approached logically. - This is what I meant in a previous post about you giving vague answers that don't actually counter the point being made.

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

Ghost,

I have done all I can do here....at the moment.

You don't get what I am saying.

I will be back, if I feel it is necessary.

I wish you the best

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

Ghost, i think your wasting your time and being led up the garden path by this one. Every question asked of him/her (but i feel its a him) is NEVER answered in a straight forward way. Like i tried to point out to him he hasnt actually answered anything thing yet just keeps spouting rehtoric. I bet he/she is a politician or president of the school debate team!!!

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

Why would Gary need to be discredited?

He was an unemployed, pot smoking, insomniac....and,

He has no proof!....and no credibility.

He was offered 36mos....oh the humanity.



Not if you never heard of him

On one hand, you make a case that they would not murder him, but on another hand, you believe they murder a whole plane load.

He could have been silenced long ago...but instead the ptb's are calling all the shots in the British courts, European courts...to stick it to Gary for 70 years.

Do you realize how many would have to been in on your charade?

You contradict yourself when you say they will stop at nothing to silence Gary...but for the last 3 years, Gary has given plenty of interviews.

The evil threats have not worked?

Imagine that.

Evil does what evil does...911 for instance....it just is not as stupid of making a 36mos martyr for the ufo community to use as a rally cry for disclosure.

Come on now,. think logically about the events in Gary's case.

Why would Gary frighten anyone, he has no proof, no names, no photos, no nothing.

So how is Gary a threat to the PtB?

Could it be he is just a hacker who got caught?

Of course not, that would be too simple...right?

Thanks for the kind words as always leeboy.

I guess I get the venom because no one has any facts to back up their wild claims.

I was not going to post here any more, but I could not refuse leeboys invitation....so bring it on:tongue2:

Poor more nuts
 

"I have done all I can do here....at the moment."

You keep on promising and here we are on page 15 and you are still here with much of the same.

Not sure you are the best self appointed defender the ufo community could hope for...
But I would leave each to arrive to his/her conclusion.

It is also quite revealing how you are revelling and reviling at the misfortune of someone who is obviously in difficulties.
:hunter: :dog: :mf_plasmawhore:

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

I changed my mind...besides...what would this thread be without me?

Y'all would have no one to be angry at anymore.

I am providing a valuable service

I have had Gary's best interest in mind all along.

The ufo community is using Gary, and Gary is using the ufo community...imo.

PC also attempted to use Gary to it's own end.

I found this most disappointing.

Plead out and it is over Gary.

You can put this all behind you.

The sooner you do this, the better you will feel.

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

Well I have been watching this going round in circles and my conclusion is that murnut you need to find something more positive to spend your time on ,your posts are well writen and you make logical arguments, but the intent?
I believe your enjoying winding Garrys' mum up.
Whom by the way deserves some empathy.
If it was my son I would be stressed and depressed and your not making it any easier.
Your NOT providing a valuble service here .
If you had Garys best interests at heart you would not be winding his mum up.
So peace brother and a little consideration.

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

I feel bad for Gary's mom.

I feel bad for Gary.

He was offered 36 months...18 in the US, 18 in the UK.

This would all be over now, if Gary would have agreed....and his mom would be happy, and Gary could be getting his life back together.

The best argument I have heard from Gary's side is the extradition treaty issue.

However he has lost these appeals.

I would support a trial, in the States with the time to be served in Britain.

I still think it is foolish to go to trial....but I also concede that this is his right.
Sentencing guidelines are usually longer IF found guilty though.

Plea arrangements can be worked out as to where the time is served, and what type of facility....some are better than others.

Gary has suffered for this, I have no doubt.

I am concerned that his lawyers have either pushed Gary in the direction it has gone, or Gary instructed them to go this way.

Are these "ufo community" connected lawyers?

Might they be pushing an agenda not in Gary's best interest?

I don't know, just asking the question.


I did read that Bill and Kerry had urged Gary to accept the help of Dan Burisch and Marcia McDowell.

Dan has agreed to testify on Gary's behalf about what he saw.

How Dan or Marci would know what Gary saw is beyond me, or how what Gary saw is relevant to case , because it is not....legally speaking.

Thankfully, Gary's lawyers have decline this support I have read.

Another concern of mine is that many of Gary's supporters, don't really have his best interest at heart....even some posting in this thread.

They urge Gary to fight, somehow hoping that Gary's case somehow leads to disclosure.
This won't happen.

The best thing that can happen for Gary is to plead out.

Not many here will concede this fact.

Do the readers agree with me, or disagree with the statement in yellow

Stand up and be counted...if you dare.

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

Bump.

I can't believe no one wants to respond?

The best thing that can happen for Gary is to plead out.

Not many here will concede this fact.

Do the readers agree with me, or disagree with the statement in yellow

Stand up and be counted...if you dare.

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

murnut
could YOU please stop to post?

you totally take any worth off this thread!:thumbdown:


I recommend the forum gods to close this thread partially.
It's an empty shell now - with all the senseless murnut posts!


Only Gary's mother, Kerry and Bill shall be able to post something,
so this thread gets informative again!:mad3:

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

Thanks for the kind words as always....but I choose to reply when addressed.

Any thoughts on the question I posed?

Please don't try to make this thread about me.

I really don't mind being attacked for my opinion, but would prefer to address something actually relevant to the thread topic.

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

British law does not allow for plea agreements the way American law does, murnut. It's a pretty alien concept. Justice doesn't happen behind closed doors here.

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

Thank you Ghost...now maybe I understand why so many are confused...plea agreements are the norm here.

And it is not behind closed doors.....both sides are present....the agreement is written.

The judge must approve...which happens 99% of the time.

Is this really true?????

No plea agreements in the UK????

I find this hard to believe.

I will research

Thank-you again Ghost.

PS...Aren't jury's behind closed doors, or are there no jury's in England?

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain

United States

See also: Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Plea bargaining is a significant part of the criminal justice system in the United States; the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial[6][7]. Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different States and jurisdictions have different rules. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are followed in federal cases and have been created to ensure a standard of uniformity in all cases decided in the federal courts.

snip

Other common law jurisdictions

In some common law jurisdictions, such as England and Wales and the Australian state of Victoria, plea bargaining is permitted only to the extent that the prosecutors and the defense can agree that the defendant will plead guilty to some charges and the prosecutor will drop the remainder. The courts in these jurisdictions have made it plain that they will always decide what the appropriate penalty is to be. No bargaining takes place over the penalty.

Ghost,

You seem to indicate that the UK system was better, but based on the evidence, I see little difference.

I would argue that it is better to have the penalty up for bargaining as well.

Care to explain the "behind closed door" comment???......if you can:wink2:

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

"Care to explain the "behind closed door" comment???......if you can"

Essentially what I meant was that there still has to be a trial (with a jury), not some backroom agreement.

p.s. wikipedia really isn't a very good source for research!

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

"You seem to indicate that the UK system was better" - marginallly; not that it is saying much.

The judicial system (or more correctly the legal system) has nothing whatsoever to do with serving justice - in any country on the planet.

Commercial law is at the root of all types of law that are practiced, including criminal law.

Why do murderers get only 10 years but if you steal the crown jewels you get 30?

Because the person who was murdered represented a revenue stream (taxes, labour, etc) that has been cut short, so the murderer is punished for bringing a revenue stream to a premature end, and your life is worth less than the crown jewels, so the murderer is punished less severely than the thief.

Commerce is the 'philosophical' basis of the entire legal system.

Also, the legal system can only work by deception. People only engage in it because they are deceived into thinking they have to. Every lawyer and judge is acting fraudulently (which is criminal) when they entice people into their system.

Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon
 

Wiki was the best I could do at the moment.

I agree that wiki is not the be all end all.

But bringing the line of reasoning back to Gary, is it not better for Gary to know exactly what the penalty is, rather than leave it up to a judge?

And also, what is the point of a trial, once one pleads guilty?