Quote:
|
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 :
Quote:
|
“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.