Poor Gary Mckinnon

[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?

[RFburns]

I am wondering if this Gary is seeing all of this as worth the trouble and negative publicity.

Im not sure that it is from my prospective. What further proof or gain has the public obtained from this..if anything?

Are we any closer to truth? Or has this brought another black mark upon the ufo community?

I wouldnt mind someone showing me what has come out of all this except for the back and forth debating on penalties and extraditions and refusals.

Who is benefiting from all of this?

Cheers!!!!

[TheGhost]

"I have no opinion on the extradition law."
This is what I mean about ducking questions. You don't need to know about the Extradition Act 2003, specifically, or have an opinion on that law, specifically.
The point of the question is about the act circumventing the centuries old principle of prima facie evidence being presented by the prosecution.

What is your opinion on the situation that people can now be extradited on the CLAIM of a crime without the prosecution being burdened with the need to produce EVIDENCE of the crime?

You say he'll get a chance to defend himself in the US. He shouldn't even be faced with the possibility of being extradited in the first place and be put into the situation where he has the 'opportunity' to defend himself in a US court.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"I have no opinion on the extradition law."
This is what I mean about ducking questions. You don't need to know about the Extradition Act 2003, specifically, or have an opinion on that law, specifically.
The point of the question is about the act circumventing the centuries old principle of prima facie evidence being presented by the prosecution.

What is your opinion on the situation that people can now be extradited on the CLAIM of a crime without the prosecution being burdened with the need to produce EVIDENCE of the crime?

You say he'll get a chance to defend himself in the US. He shouldn't even be faced with the possibility of being extradited in the first place and be put into the situation where he has the 'opportunity' to defend himself in a US court.

My only opinion, as stated before is that Gary's lawyers have appealed to the British and European courts and lost.

Gary admitted to the hacking by the way.

Isn't that evidence?

My guess is that you will say "No"

[TheGhost]

Originally Posted by murnut

My only opinion, as stated before is that Gary's lawyers have appealed to the British and European courts and lost.

Gary admitted to the hacking by the way.

Isn't that evidence?

My guess is that you will say "No"

You are still ducking the question that I posed.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

You are still ducking the question that I posed.

The question has been answered...or perhaps you don't like the answer...or perhaps I have misinterpreted the question.

[TheGhost]

"To be replaced by who or what exactly?"
I said nothing whatsoever about replacing them at all. This is the level at which you are thinking - you asume they should or need to be replaced; I do not.

"he would have stood up and faced the charges like a man"
This goes back to the same argumement. He should not be facing charges from the US in the first place.

How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence against you?

"The Utopia you desire"
What the hell are you talking about? When did I ever mention anything about Utopia (not that I desire one, as Utopia is the false paradise promised by satan, just FYI)? I have been making legal points about Gary's case and you talk about Utopia. Get on the right page, murnut! lol

"the U.C. has to be ever vigilant...not to lie, not commit crimes of any kind, not to use the same tactics that have been used against us."
See what I said in the previous posts - all the government has to do is pass another law to make previously legal actions illegal. And, every civil right we have was once illegal!
You need to get over this obsession with legality. It is childish in the extreme. I'm not trying to insult you, murnut, but you are making it very difficult! You know that phrase, 'thinking outside the box'? You are in a very small, dark box at the moment. You need to expand your mind to consider actions that the government (the ones who are oppressing you) have deemed to be illegal. They will make anything illegal that they have to, to maintain the status quo.
What if they made simply asking questions about UFOs illegal? What if they banned all UFO related books, videos, DVDs, banned anyone talking publically about it? What if they, essentially, introduced prohibition where it comes to ETs?

As for using the same tactics as them, we (the general public) do not have the resources to do that. But, they have been very effective, so why not use the same tactics against the PTB?

The 90% of the world's population that you speak of will, if they ever stop watching football, soap operas and reality TV, only take notice of the results, not the method. Paradigm changing information like this will get their attention. 'Illegal' methods used to obtain it will pale into insignificance next to the information itself. No-one will care about who got it or how or anything like that. You and the rest of the UFO community do not need to worry about gaining the 'respect' of the masses. You are not that important. Even if you, murnut, were the one to finally reveal the 'truth' to everyone, the truth would overshadow you by a long way.

"Comparing Gary's case to slavery is ridiculous...imo."
I wasn't actually comparing Gary's case to slavery. I was comparing the truth embargo on UFOs/ETs/free energy to the situation a slave might find himself in. I was giving an example of how RIGHTS are not something awarded to you as a privilege by a government, or master, they are something you have by way of being born. When non-violent protests are exhausted (against someone who is violating your rights) violence is the only thing left. Acquiescence to the situation would be a crime against yourself.

"So if it is morally correct...why won't Gary stand up?"
Gary did stand up, because it is morally correct, by hacking in the first place. His actions (hacking) were morally correct because it is immoral to surpress free energy technology when in the UK alone 50,000 elderly people a year freeze to death. God knows how many die in this way in the US and elsewhere.

Gary's actions were morally correct. But his legal situation is another story all together. Do you know how the legal system works? Do you know that even simple words like 'must' have a different meaning in the law to what they do in plain English? The legal system is a completely different beast.

But again, we go back to the same argument. He shouldn't even be faced with the situation of being extradited to a foreign country for 'crimes' that occured in Britain. The CPS refused to prosecute him here. He did face justice and their conclusion was to throw out the case against him.

Then comes the Extradition Act 2003. It is made retroactive which is a highly unusual move and violates lots of well established (just a few centuries' worth) principles of law and justice. It gets rid of the need for the prosecution to provide prima facie evidence (again, just a few centuries' worth of well established law) and essentially puts Gary into a situation he should never have been facing.

When his 'crimes' were committed, facing extradition to a foreign country with no evidence being presented by the prosecution and facing a possible 70 year jail term were NOT the consequences of his actions. A possible sentence for him would have been 6 months' community service IF found guilty, but like I said the case was thrown out of court.


I don't think any of your answers actually answered any of the points I made, or perhaps maybe vaguely once or twice. This is what I meant in a previous post about you giving vague or generic answers that don't actually answer the points. Sure, you've quoted my comments but your answer doesn't actually ANSWER the point being made. Sorry for repeating myself; I feel it necessary.

[murnut]

We agree on very little and apparently suffer from a failure to communicate.

I will try to be clearer, but you may never get the points I am making

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"he would have stood up and faced the charges like a man"
This goes back to the same argumement. He should not be facing charges from the US in the first place.

How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence against you?

There has been no prosecution as of yet....but if you refer to the extradition...check the House of Lords ruling.

You will find your answer there
http://www.publications.parliament.u...0/mckinn-1.htm

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"The Utopia you desire"
What the hell are you talking about? When did I ever mention anything about Utopia (not that I desire one, as Utopia is the false paradise promised by satan, just FYI)? I have been making legal points about Gary's case and you talk about Utopia. Get on the right page, murnut! lol

The utopia where folks only follow laws they think are moral.

What about the Islamic extremists?

I am sure they think their actions are morally justified.

Hacking is wrong.

In my opinion.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"the U.C. has to be ever vigilant...not to lie, not commit crimes of any kind, not to use the same tactics that have been used against us."
See what I said in the previous posts - all the government has to do is pass another law to make previously legal actions illegal. And, every civil right we have was once illegal!
You need to get over this obsession with legality. It is childish in the extreme. I'm not trying to insult you, murnut, but you are making it very difficult! You know that phrase, 'thinking outside the box'? You are in a very small, dark box at the moment. You need to expand your mind to consider actions that the government (the ones who are oppressing you) have deemed to be illegal. They will make anything illegal that they have to, to maintain the status quo.
What if they made simply asking questions about UFOs illegal? What if they banned all UFO related books, videos, DVDs, banned anyone talking publically about it? What if they, essentially, introduced prohibition where it comes to ETs?

I don't think I like your tone.

I speak out against the govt all the time...the bailout, 911, wars.

I don't resort to breaking the law...because I don't want to go to jail.

If I get a speeding ticket, I pay it.

I pay my mortgage, because if I don't, the evil bank will take my house.

Opposition to perceived unjust laws are fine.

But the manner of the opposition should not be as morally wrong....in my opinion.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

As for using the same tactics as them, we (the general public) do not have the resources to do that. But, they have been very effective, so why not use the same tactics against the PTB?

Because it is wrong

Originally Posted by TheGhost

The 90% of the world's population that you speak of will, if they ever stop watching football, soap operas and reality TV, only take notice of the results, not the method. Paradigm changing information like this will get their attention. 'Illegal' methods used to obtain it will pale into insignificance next to the information itself. No-one will care about who got it or how or anything like that. You and the rest of the UFO community do not need to worry about gaining the 'respect' of the masses. You are not that important. Even if you, murnut, were the one to finally reveal the 'truth' to everyone, the truth would overshadow you by a long way.

I doubt you would ever believe what the real truth is

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"Comparing Gary's case to slavery is ridiculous...imo."
I wasn't actually comparing Gary's case to slavery. I was comparing the truth embargo on UFOs/ETs/free energy to the situation a slave might find himself in. I was giving an example of how RIGHTS are not something awarded to you as a privilege by a government, or master, they are something you have by way of being born. When non-violent protests are exhausted (against someone who is violating your rights) violence is the only thing left. Acquiescence to the situation would be a crime against yourself.

Truth embargo?

Govts are not about truth...try a church.

Govts lie...this will never change.

When and if there is disclosure, you won't believe it.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"So if it is morally correct...why won't Gary stand up?"
Gary did stand up, because it is morally correct, by hacking in the first place. His actions (hacking) were morally correct because it is immoral to surpress free energy technology when in the UK alone 50,000 elderly people a year freeze to death. God knows how many die in this way in the US and elsewhere.

Gary's actions were morally correct. But his legal situation is another story all together. Do you know how the legal system works? Do you know that even simple words like 'must' have a different meaning in the law to what they do in plain English? The legal system is a completely different beast.

We disagree on what morality is apparently.

Morality is standing up for what is right no matter what the consequences.

Gary refuses to face his.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

But again, we go back to the same argument. He shouldn't even be faced with the situation of being extradited to a foreign country for 'crimes' that occured in Britain. The CPS refused to prosecute him here. He did face justice and their conclusion was to throw out the case against him.

I understand this argument, however your courts felt differently.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Then comes the Extradition Act 2003. It is made retroactive which is a highly unusual move and violates lots of well established (just a few centuries' worth) principles of law and justice. It gets rid of the need for the prosecution to provide prima facie evidence (again, just a few centuries' worth of well established law) and essentially puts Gary into a situation he should never have been facing.

He admitted hacking...this is considered evidence.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

When his 'crimes' were committed, facing extradition to a foreign country with no evidence being presented by the prosecution and facing a possible 70 year jail term were NOT the consequences of his actions. A possible sentence for him would have been 6 months' community service IF found guilty, but like I said the case was thrown out of court.

An admission of guilt is considered evidence...and US sentencing guidelines probably puts him at 5 years.

Show me a case where a hacker has served more than 5 years in the US

Originally Posted by TheGhost

I don't think any of your answers actually answered any of the points I made, or perhaps maybe vaguely once or twice. This is what I meant in a previous post about you giving vague or generic answers that don't actually answer the points. Sure, you've quoted my comments but your answer doesn't actually ANSWER the point being made. Sorry for repeating myself; I feel it necessary.

I answered everyone of your points...you just don't like my answers

[TheGhost]

"Show me a case where a hacker has served more than 5 years in the US"

Show me a case where a hacker has hacked into all the places Gary did and saw all the things he did. And where laws are CHANGED and made RETROACTIVE in a country by TRAITOROUS politicians to allow the hacker to be extradited, WITHOUT evidence of a crime being presented at his extradition trial, to a foreign country. Nothing about Gary's case is run-of-the-mill.

He is facing an exceptionally extreme and illegal set of circumstances. People are committing treason to get him over to the States! Gary will be lucky if the plane he gets sent over on doesn't crash into the Atlantic.

No-one goes to all the trouble that the US/UK authorities have over a simple hacking case. The fact that they have gone to such lengths (changing laws, ignoring centuries old principles of law, committing treason, etc) shows that what he saw - or may have seen, as you don't believe he saw anything that he claims to - is obviously the reason they have gone to such extremes. His actions rattled them. They are not going to give him the usual punishment any other hacker might get.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

"Show me a case where a hacker has served more than 5 years in the US"

Show me a case where a hacker has hacked into all the places Gary did and saw all the things he did. And where laws are CHANGED and made RETROACTIVE in a country by TRAITOROUS politicians to allow the hacker to be extradited, WITHOUT evidence of a crime being presented at his extradition trial, to a foreign country. Nothing about Gary's case is run-of-the-mill.

He is facing an exceptionally extreme and illegal set of circumstances. People are committing treason to get him over to the States! Gary will be lucky if the plane he gets sent over on doesn't crash into the Atlantic.

No-one goes to all the trouble that the US/UK authorities have over a simple hacking case. The fact that they have gone to such lengths (changing laws, ignoring centuries old principles of law, committing treason, etc) shows that what he saw - or may have seen, as you don't believe he saw anything that he claims to - is obviously the reason they have gone to such extremes. His actions rattled them. They are not going to give him the usual punishment any other hacker might get.

Gary saw nothing...I repeat...nothing.

You would have never of heard of him if he did....and the greatest secret ever is not hooked to the internet, not now or ever.

Gary has played you, he has lied about the potential charges, and he is probably lying about what he saw.

[leeboy]

posted by THEGHOST "He is facing an exceptionally extreme and illegal set of circumstances. People are committing treason to get him over to the States! Gary will be lucky if the plane he gets sent over on doesn't crash into the Atlantic."


I fear you may be closer to the truth than you may realise. The ptb are above any law and are answerable to no-one.

[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?


Don't confuse patriotism with nationalism. 'My country, right or wrong' is nationalism, not patriotism. It is perhaps a subtle but very important distinction. A US patriot would be doing the same kind of thing that Gary was doing.
The oath that Americans take is to defend the CONSTITUTION (not the government) against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. America is overflowing with domestic enemies. However, they don't just threaten the US but the whole world.
The constitution wasn't threatened by Gary! It is however being threatened by US politicians, law makers, military, intelligence, diplomats, bankers, secret society members, etc, etc, etc.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

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?


Don't confuse patriotism with nationalism. 'My country, right or wrong' is nationalism, not patriotism. It is perhaps a subtle but very important distinction. A US patriot would be doing the same kind of thing that Gary was doing.
The oath that Americans take is to defend the CONSTITUTION (not the government) against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. America is overflowing with domestic enemies. However, they don't just threaten the US but the whole world.
The constitution wasn't threatened by Gary! It is however being threatened by US politicians, law makers, military, intelligence, diplomats, bankers, secret society members, etc, etc, etc.

Well said. Cant stand patriotism when its in this form. Makes me want to vomit.

[murnut]

Originally Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN

Well said. Cant stand patriotism when its in this form. Makes me want to vomit.

How about a specific quote of mine that confirms this conclusion?

[murnut]

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?


Don't confuse patriotism with nationalism. 'My country, right or wrong' is nationalism, not patriotism. It is perhaps a subtle but very important distinction. A US patriot would be doing the same kind of thing that Gary was doing.
The oath that Americans take is to defend the CONSTITUTION (not the government) against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. America is overflowing with domestic enemies. However, they don't just threaten the US but the whole world.
The constitution wasn't threatened by Gary! It is however being threatened by US politicians, law makers, military, intelligence, diplomats, bankers, secret society members, etc, etc, etc.

America is wrong plenty of times...we may be wrong this time.

However, I think your beef is more with the UK than USA

[TheGhost]

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

Originally Posted by murnut

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

I don't think I was taking it out of context. If I did, how did you mean it?

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

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



I don't think I was taking it out of context. If I did, how did you mean it?

Go back and look at the post I was replying to.

Martian said all men are created equal.

I was only implying that men are equal under the law.

In fact all men (and women) are given equal protection under the law.

All men and women are not equal...other wise we would all be the same.

Gary is entitled to due process.

If you want to conclude that the UK law allowing his extradition is against the law...then okay.

I understand your point.

Gary has had numerous appeals and lost everyone.

But your problem should be with the UK govt.

[TheGhost]

Originally Posted by murnut

Go back and look at the post I was replying to.

Martian said all men are created equal.

I was only implying that men are equal under the law.

In fact all men (and women) are given equal protection under the law.

All men and women are not equal...other wise we would all be the same.

Gary is entitled to due process.

If you want to conclude that the UK law allowing his extradition is against the law...then okay.

I understand your point.

Gary has had numerous appeals and lost everyone.

But your problem should be with the UK govt.

OMfG, equality does not mean sameness. You have a lot of growing up to do, murnut!

My problem is with the UK government - I have repeatedly said the politicians who pushed the extradition act through committed treason. I also consider the US government/Shadow government and military establishment of the US & UK to be committing crimes in this whole situation, not least of which is the surpression of the existence of extraterrestrial life and free-energy technology.
On a down-to-earth level it is the free-energy technology that is the real reason for the surpression of the existence of ETs. On a higher level it is the loss of control over us - spiritually, mentally and emotionally - that is the reason for the surpression.


"Gary is entitled to due process."
You are absolutely right. For nearly eight centuries prior to 2004 Gary would have had due process. The Extradition Act 2003 circumvents his right to due process and gives the prosecution the 'right' to demand his extradition without the need to burden themselves with providing evidence against him.

How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence against you, murnut?

How would you defend yourself in a court if the prosecution wasn't required to provide evidence that you committed a crime? i.e. the prosecution's CLAIM that you committed one was enough for the judge to sentence you? How do you defend yourself against that?
I would like an answer to this question, murnut. You have repeatedly dodged this question and instead sprouted out self-righteous bull5h1t.

How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence?

You are spot on that Gary is entitled to due process.

How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence?

This is the key question, IMHO, in the whole matter.

How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence?

The current legal situation violates PRINCIPLES of law and justice that have been around for nearly EIGHT CENTURIES!

How does one defend themselves when the prosecution is not required to provide evidence?

[TheGhost]

Originally Posted by murnut

Hacking is moral and just?

That's not what I'm saying, murnut. I am not saying any specific 'crime' is moral or just. Reversing my argument like you have tried to do is not an appropriate response.
The fact that this kind of information (extraterrestrial life, free energy) is surpressed is detrimental to the ENTIRE human race. If hacking is what was necessary to get hold of some of this information then yes, it was justified.

I expect you would counter this with something like, 'Well, if murder is what was necessary would you say that was justified, too?'

My response would be 'yes'. I don't support murdering people or starting wars; I would like to think that people are more intelligent than having to resort to it. But if people did not resist what they consider to be tyranny to the ultimate extent (causing the death of those who are oppressing you) would the United States of America ever have existed?

Also, this is the reason you have the second amendment. It is not simply about being allowed to own a gun. It allows for the PEOPLE to maintain a well armed militia to be used as a last resort (asuming all other avenues of resistance have been exhausted) against the GOVERNMENT when it inevitably 'goes bad' (as power tends to corrupt).
The founders would not have put it in there if they didn't think it might be necessary, one day. The US government went bad a long time ago and it has been metastasising ever since. Now it looks like the whole body is about to go into total system failure.

You might think that my point of view is a little extreme but consider this: a slave sees an opportunity to get away from his slave-master, to freedom, but he has to kill the slave-master first. The kind of person who would own a slave is not the kind of person who would take any notice of the protests of the slave.
He would laugh at his requests to be set free. He would have fits of laughter, rolling on the floor, over the slave's protests that he should have equal rights as the slave-master and be treated equally and fairly. If the slave became aggressive he would be physically assaulted to put him back in line. If the slave became uncooperative he would not be fed till he started 'behaving' again.
The only 'protest' left open to the slave is to kill the person who considers him to be their property. In this situation the slave's actions are perfectly justified. The slave has a birth right (or God-given right, if you want to think of it in those terms) to be free. The slave-master has absolutely no rights over the slave whatsoever. The slave-master is committing a crime against nature. The slave's actions are restoring the natural order.

Your argument that the UFO community should only stick to 'legal' means is ridiculous. You are like the slave tugging on the tailcoats of your slave-master asking for him to be nice to you, to throw you a few more crumbs from the dinner table for your supper.
You accept your position as subserviant to the government or the PTB or the inteligence agencies or the secret societies or whoever. You are NOT subserviant. You have as much right to all this information as they do. If they won't give it to you you have to be prepared to take it.

Operate within legal means all you can, but all they have to do is pass another law to make your previously legal actions illegal. Then what are you going to do? Give up, forget about it, be a good little slave? Serve them well, murnut, they might let you eat at the dinner table one day, who knows?
Freedom of Information Act requests with regard to UFOs or free energy technology or anything THEY want kept secret are simply laughed at. The legal means of fight the PTB have long been exhausted.


Murnut, you really need to get over this 'legal' nonsense. Most of the actions of the government in Nazi Germany were legal. The actions of the Soviet empire within its territories were legal. Governments pass laws all the time to make their crimes 'legal' (for example, the recent theft by the US government of $700B from you, your children, your grandchildren - the wealth of future generations stolen from them before a lot of them have even been born). Big Brother is not a benevolent big brother. He is a nasty, stinking piece of 5h1t that needs to be flushed down the fcuking toilet!

[murnut]

Originally Posted by TheGhost

That's not what I'm saying, murnut. I am not saying any specific 'crime' is moral or just. Reversing my argument like you have tried to do is not an appropriate response.

Ghost...I like you...this is just a friendly debate.

I realize that my opinion is the minority

Originally Posted by TheGhost

The fact that this kind of information (extraterrestrial life, free energy) is surpressed is detrimental to the ENTIRE human race.

There is no proof that what you allude to is the case.

There could be excellent reasons why nothing has been released...the main one being that the PtB, govts are just as clueless as the rest of us.

You could never believe this...right?

Spy and counter spy releases aimed at foreign powers with those in the ufo community as hapless messengers of convenience.

It is well known the CIA promoted ufo's as cover for Advanced Jets.

Gee...ya think they would let it slip that we have reversed engineered a saucer to keep the enemies of the USA guessing?

Originally Posted by TheGhost

If hacking is what was necessary to get hold of some of this information then yes, it was justified.

I expect you would counter this with something like, 'Well, if murder is what was necessary would you say that was justified, too?'

My response would be 'yes'. I don't support murdering people or starting wars; I would like to think that people are more intelligent than having to resort to it. But if people did not resist what they consider to be tyranny to the ultimate extent (causing the death of those who are oppressing you) would the United States of America ever have existed?

So if it is morally correct...why won't Gary stand up?

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Also, this is the reason you have the second amendment. It is not simply about being allowed to own a gun. It allows for the PEOPLE to maintain a well armed militia to be used as a last resort (asuming all other avenues of resistance have been exhausted) against the GOVERNMENT when it inevitably 'goes bad' (as power tends to corrupt).
The founders would not have put it in there if they didn't think it might be necessary, one day. The US government went bad a long time ago and it has been metastasising ever since. Now it looks like the whole body is about to go into total system failure.

What? You don't believe the Obama hype?

Originally Posted by TheGhost

You might think that my point of view is a little extreme but consider this: a slave sees an opportunity to get away from his slave-master, to freedom, but he has to kill the slave-master first. The kind of person who would own a slave is not the kind of person who would take any notice of the protests of the slave.
He would laugh at his requests to be set free. He would have fits of laughter, rolling on the floor, over the slave's protests that he should have equal rights as the slave-master and be treated equally and fairly. If the slave became aggressive he would be physically assaulted to put him back in line. If the slave became uncooperative he would not be fed till he started 'behaving' again.
The only 'protest' left open to the slave is to kill the person who considers him to be their property. In this situation the slave's actions are perfectly justified. The slave has a birth right (or God-given right, if you want to think of it in those terms) to be free. The slave-master has absolutely no rights over the slave whatsoever. The slave-master is committing a crime against nature. The slave's actions are restoring the natural order.

Comparing Gary's case to slavery is ridiculous...imo.

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Your argument that the UFO community should only stick to 'legal' means is ridiculous. You are like the slave tugging on the tailcoats of your slave-master asking for him to be nice to you, to throw you a few more crumbs from the dinner table for your supper.
You accept your position as subserviant to the government or the PTB or the inteligence agencies or the secret societies or whoever. You are NOT subserviant. You have as much right to all this information as they do. If they won't give it to you you have to be prepared to take it.

Do we have a right to know what the govts know about anything?

What about God?

Are they covering up that as well?

And if they actually did release what little they do know...you Ghost will not believe it.

Do you believe the official 9-11 story?

I am sure you do not.

Why turn to the govt for your truth when they are clearly not in the truth business?

All through time govts have lied to the people for various reasons...would you agree?

This I can guarantee...100%...disclosure when and if it comes, will not be what you expect, nor will it resemble in any way..."truth"

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Operate within legal means all you can, but all they have to do is pass another law to make your previously legal actions illegal. Then what are you going to do? Give up, forget about it, be a good little slave? Serve them well, murnut, they might let you eat at the dinner table one day, who knows?
Freedom of Information Act requests with regard to UFOs or free energy technology or anything THEY want kept secret are simply laughed at. The legal means of fight the PTB have long been exhausted.

If the ufo community desires respect from the other 90% of the worlds population, then the U.C. has to be ever vigilant...not to lie, not commit crimes of any kind, not to use the same tactics that have been used against us.

Because then we are no better than those who you perceive to "oppress" us.

New Boss, Same as the old Boss...remember that song?

Originally Posted by TheGhost

Murnut, you really need to get over this 'legal' nonsense. Most of the actions of the government in Nazi Germany were legal. The actions of the Soviet empire within its territories were legal. Governments pass laws all the time to make their crimes 'legal' (for example, the recent theft by the US government of $700B from you, your children, your grandchildren - the wealth of future generations stolen from them before a lot of them have even been born). Big Brother is not a benevolent big brother. He is a nasty, stinking piece of 5h1t that needs to be flushed down the fcuking toilet!

To be replaced by who or what exactly?

Govts...ALL govts (Big Brother) are about control and always will be.

The Utopia you desire cannot happen while we are actually still human.

I wish I could tell you differently, but this is a sad fact.

Now I was against the 700 billion and counting bailout that is a theft.

But hacking a bank or the govt would not get me any where except jail.

So I won't do that, because I am thinking about the consequences of my actions in the actual society I live in...not some utopia where one decides that the morality of the ufo cover up is the same as human slavery, and therefore the ends justifies the means.

If Gary really believed this as you have written Ghost...he would have stood up and faced the charges like a man.

But he does not believe as you do Ghost, he is using you.