[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