[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"1)All humans are equal under the law."

Murnut, this is patently untrue. Serving heads of state are immune from prosecution.

My quote is taken out of context...why not include the quote i was replying to?

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"2) Knowledge is power if obtained lawfully"
"the ufo community forfeits whatever "moral authority" it has when it attempts to take the law, even a flawed one, into it's own hands."


Murnut, your argument presupposes that all laws are moral and just. This is also patently untrue.

Hacking is moral and just?

Gary should have hacked is own military, not the US

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Also, people are not bound by unjust laws. If the law is unjust they have a right to disobey it.
I'll refer you to one of my previous posts - all civil rights that we enjoy today were once illegal. People had to fight for them. People died for them, any not just in wars but in pitched battles with police/military within their own countries.

Taxes are illegal in my opinion, but I still pay them.

What civil liberty is being denied?

The right to know what goes on in black projects?

That's the crime?

There is no right to know military secrets.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"Taking the "law" into ones own hands hurts the credibility of all of us."

Murnut, you seem to be one of those people who are addicted to the hunt [for knowledge of UFOs, or whatever] and you don't really want answers to come out because then the hunt is over.

Sticks and stones.

Truth is...Uncle is generally clueless about the phenomena...that's why they still scramble jets to chase them.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Hacking into the pentagon and NASA, etc, is a pretty serious attempt at finding out the truth. The US authorities' actions (as well as the actions of the UK govt - making the Extradition Act 2003 retroactive so that it would apply to certain people, for example) shows how seriously they take his actions. How many in the "UFO community" have come under such scrutiny? Not many, because not many are prepared to go to the lengths that he did; the vast majority of people in the UFO community are agents.

You probably think I am an agent..hehe

If Gary was not prepared to face the music, he should not have done the crime.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"I can make a case that he should have only hacked UK military targets"
I sense some nationalism tainting your point of view here, murnut! Could that be the source of your angst with regard to Gary McKinnon's actions, by any chance?

I am a proud American...does that make me evil?

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"It is a lie that Gary faces a MILITARY tribunal, it is a lie that Gary is to be treated as an enemy combatant, it is a lie that Gary would be held in Guantanamo, it is a lie that Gary faces 70 years"

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.

Grasping at straws....look at the charges freely available online.

Gary is not charged as a terrorist...period.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Murnut, you talk repeatedly of Gary not wanting to face the consequences of his actions.
The consequences of his actions under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 would have been 6 months' community service, if found guilty (the Crown Prosecution Service refused to charge him, by the way). This is quite a big difference from the 70 years he has been threatened with by the US authorities.

Gee...he was offered 36 mos...the last 18 to be served in Britain.

HE REFUSED

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Murnut, the majority of your arguments are actually beside the point because Gary shouldn't even be faced with extradition. The Extradtion Act 2003 does not require the presentation of prima facie evidence by the US authorities. The MPs who pushed this act through parliament committed treason - putting the interests of a foreign government before the interests of British citizens.

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

Again, I have no opinion on the extradition law.

Gary will have the opportunity to defend himself at trial in the States.

Again, my opinion is that Gary should plead out.

If Gary feels his case is soooooo strong and there is no evidence, there should not be any problems...right?

Originally Posted by TheGhost

And by the way, ducking questions, giving vague arguments and failing to answer specific points raised by other members hurts your credibility, murnut.

Now that isn't fair since I have answered every question directed at me.


I apologize that you don't agree with my opinion.

I don't think I have been vague at all.

Got an example that is not taken out of context...like your first quote of me above?