Poor Gary Mckinnon

[seeing clearly]

Just my view:

but in many people there is a pronounced
suffering savior archetype.
These will stand out in front of tanks and raise a hand to
tyranny. Their contract before reincarnation here may well
be to be a suffering savior.

He cannot do it alone.

He needs people to keep him before the public eye or
his sacrifice will go in vain

If a mass support is kept going he will become martyr material
and TPTB will not disappear him . Tyranny does not want martyrs!
They can ignite rev ol ushun!

To really help him AND OURSELVES, keep his name and work circulating
across web. If not , and he becomes innocuous, it is easy to lose him
in the massive system of misnamed justice.

Send him kind words, keep his name on every forum, send emails ,
( eyes read them ) and generally let tyranny KNOW we will
follow him to his freedom.

This way he stands a chance of getting out before he rots!

This is how Ernst Zundel was saved from twenty years or more.

He was kept in fornt of the public moment by moment, day by day
from the day he was illegally arrested and kept incognito for
two weeks in a Tenessee sheriffs jail W/O any charges !

An international cadre of supporters screamed across the web
and even the insane courts of siun Germany would decide to stick
to the law and give him what that law stated, five years but no
time off for two years he sat in soiltary in Canada UNCHARGED
for ANY crime.
( he was eventually charged with a thought crime, denial of a hoax is
a thought crime in Germany and many other nations and Liberman and
his cohorts are trying to pass same law here in America ! )

This even tho so many kept his name in the faces of TPTB
He became an International HERO and martyr!

This is NOT what tyranny wanted to happen.

if we stand tall for Gary he will survive and be an ICON
for all of us who want to get free of tyranny.

He is a rev ol ush nerie of the first order !

re vol ushuns are ignited by FIREBRANDS who most often die
in that process and become LEGENDS

It is these very seemingly small events that re ignite the fighting
Spirit in we older persons and LIGHT IT IN THE YOUNGER ONES!

Creating rev ol ushun takes days, weeks, years ,to gather up enough
Spirit to stand up to the OGRE with a thousand weapons.


when that Spirit reaches its CRUX one sufferig savior will stand up
and be the catalyst that fires that shot to be heard and welcomed
round the world and across the web.

It MAY be GARY, it MAY be one who comes after, but as the
cycle ripens one will be.


TRUST NATURE, one will BE.


cycles overlapping cycles. and so it is...

[seeing clearly]

DO NOT EVEN THINK OF CLOSING THIS THREAD

More people will come in and read of Garys problems
and how to help him.

If any cannot see his problem is ALL OF OUR problem
u r not seeing the core and tendril ends as all of the
same octopus, tyranny

worlds crises need exposure by such as GARY.

we cannot seperate every crisis and focus our attentions on
only the ones we feel threatend by

they are all cut from ONE cloth and must be seen as usable to
show people just who/were TYRANNY is

his actions are inspiring many young people who get bored with
some of the older ones ( me included) who post OTT
intellectual and DOOM/ crisis stuff.


......................

free Gary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz_GtLJyUTo

we are already using anti-ravity ( OOPS !)

..............

HOMIES on the job:

Project Camelot interviews Gary McKinnon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNsa...eature=related


.....


Keep GARY in front of the public !


`

[Tyler Macmillan]

Sigh. So I was just reading Bill and Kerry's update today about Gary KcKinnon, and their disappointment that he isn't seeking to bring forth testimonies about the Secret Space Program. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this yet, but I must admit it seems like it would be a shame to miss a golden opportunity to have Burisch et al testify in a US court about what's really going on.

I must express my sincere support for Gary here, and what he has been through so far.

[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.

What do you guys think?

[murnut]

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.

What do you guys think?

I agree with you, but I don't believe Gary "found" anything

[freekatz]

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.

What do you guys think?

Why is it so wrong to "hack" into government computers? they are after all supposed to be civil servants paid for by our taxes, they are not holy people above us. We all know full well that governments all over the world are witholding vital information from us.

Do you consider governments "hacking" into our email, phone lines and computer IP addresses is acceptable but god forbid we should try and check up on what they are up to? I think it is gross hypocrisy on the part of the government and the laws.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by freekatz

Why is it so wrong to "hack" into government computers? they are after all supposed to be civil servants paid for by our taxes, they are not holy people above us. We all know full well that governments all over the world are witholding vital information from us.

Do you consider governments "hacking" into our email, phone lines and computer IP addresses is acceptable but god forbid we should try and check up on what they are up to? I think it is gross hypocrisy on the part of the government and the laws.

So by your reasoning, murder would be okay since the Govt does it...right?

Besides that, Gary is not a US citizen.

[freekatz]

Originally Posted by murnut

So by your reasoning, murder would be okay since the Govt does it...right?

Besides that, Gary is not a US citizen.

Comparing computer hacking to murder is a little far fetched and infantile in my opinion.

I take it you would have as all click our heels and blindly obey rules no matter how arbitrary and unfair? Anyone who has the courage to break through the boundaries imposed by an oppressive system has my respect - I certainly don't see anyone being harmed by Gary's actions.

Being a U.S. citizen is neither here nor there, we are all citizens of this planet and the information Gary was seeking was relevant to us all.

Peace to you Murnut, I really dislike conflict

[murnut]

Originally Posted by freekatz

Comparing computer hacking to murder is a little far fetched and infantile in my opinion.

I take it you would have as all click our heels and blindly obey rules no matter how arbitrary and unfair? Anyone who has the courage to break through the boundaries imposed by an oppressive system has my respect - I certainly don't see anyone being harmed by Gary's actions.

Being a U.S. citizen is neither here nor there, we are all citizens of this planet and the information Gary was seeking was relevant to us all.

Peace to you Murnut, I really dislike conflict

We disagree, and I am allergic to cats.

I am trying to make a point that the way to defeat evil is not more evil.

Condoning hacking because ufology wants answers is no different than terrorists hacking networks.

Both think that they are in the right.

But let's assume for a moment that Gary is some type of noble Robin Hood, doing us all a favor, what happened to his balls once he got caught?

If he had any sense of right and wrong, he would have faced the music, but decided he did not like the tune of the consequences of his actions.

When the Ufo community anoints a coward as a hero, it is a sad day.

I don't post in reply to cause conflict, but to alert people that the reasons for supporting Gary are seriously misguided and hurt the credibility of work being done by the real heroes.

Gary was offered a plea agreement of less than 3 years and refused.

I have nothing against Gary, I feel bad that he has made so many poor decisions, but poor Gary has nobody to blame but himself.

Originally Posted by freekatz

Comparing computer hacking to murder is a little far fetched and infantile in my opinion.

So then...
If someone hacks a government computer..
And finds a list of names of foreign agents...
Then posts that list of names on the internet resulting in said agents being killed
How would you feel then?

What Gary supposedly found was a list of names...

IF these really were non terrestrial officers of some secret space fleet... and their names got out, their families could instantly become targets...

[bill7907]

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.

What do you guys think?

So it is wrong to try to see what the Government has been doing with all the American Tax they have collected from the people without telling them what they have used them for?

Right...


I am 100% with Gary.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by bill7907

So it is wrong to try to see what the Government has been doing with all the American Tax they have collected from the people without telling them what they have used them for?

Right...


I am 100% with Gary.

Again...Gary is not a US citizen, therefore he had no right, by your own logic.

When a group says that the law does not apply, because the GOVT breaks the same law, they lose all credibility, in my eyes anyway.

Gary just refuses to accept the reality, that the accused don't get to choose their own punishment.

[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....