Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) - View Single Post

TheGhost · 11-17-2008, 12:19 AM

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

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

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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?

"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.

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.

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?

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

11-17-2008, 12:19 AM	#297
TheGhost Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Merseyside, England Posts: 50	Re: Poor Gary Mckinnon "1)All humans are equal under the law." Murnut, this is patently untrue. Serving heads of state are immune from prosecution. "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. 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. "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. 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. "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? "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. 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. 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? And by the way, ducking questions, giving vague arguments and failing to answer specific points raised by other members hurts your credibility, murnut.