It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pop Superstar Sting Supports Pentagon Hacker, Condemns U.S.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Pop Superstar Sting Supports Pentagon Hacker, Condemns U.S.


cms.animalfarmshow.com

International pop star Sting is the latest British celebrity to throw his weight behind 9/11 truther and admitted Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon, the U.K. man who’s still fighting tooth and nail to avoid a U.S. trial on computer hacking charges.

“It’s a travesty of human rights that Gary McKinnon finds himself in this dreadful situation,” the former Police front man told the Mail on Sunday.

“The U.S. response in relation to the true nature of Gary’s crime is disproportionate in the extreme,” Sting said, referring to the extremely disproportionate response of charging a 42-year-old man with computer intrusion, when all he did was intrude into some computers.

Prosecutors say McKinnon broke into more than 90 unclassified Pentagon systems in 2001 and 2002, allegedly crashing some of them. He has said he was looking for proof of a UFO cover-up, though he left this message in an Army computer in 2002: “U.S. foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days … It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year … I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels.”
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
Mailonsunday.co.uk Youtube.com

[edit on 9-4-2009 by News And History]




posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   
British police (with the help of government-controlled internet service providers) located Gary, and then he was charged with "damaging" protected computers in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Project Camelot interviews Gary McKinnon



Gary McKinnon: Hacking the Pentagon
London, June 2006

projectcamelot.org/gary...

I [Kerry Cassidy] caught up with Gary McKinnon in North London on my way back from safari in Kenya. The interview was shot using a hand-held camcorder and uploaded at 4 am UK time, making use of a wireless connection outside of an office building in downtown Birmingham. This is what is known as guerilla filmmaking...

We sat in the back of his local pub, in a garden in the late afternoon. Gary is lucid, eloquent and extremely intelligent. He made it clear that the real reason the Americans want to extradite him is not for any damage he has done, for in fact there wasn't any. They are pursuing him is because of what he might have seen. Specifically, documents revealing a list of "Non-terrestrial officers" and off-world cargo operations somewhere out in space, hinting at the real possibility of military activities taking place in relation to other planets.

Such a possibility has got to be mind-blowing to the average person who barely grasps that there might actually be aliens from other worlds interacting with earth and governments in the vicinity of our solar system. Key to the whole extradition matter is the issue that there were NO passwords required in order to access this material... and that a relatively unprofessional hacker, self-taught albeit brilliant, would be able, using a dial-up modem, to gain top secret access to NASA files and places as sacrosanct as the Pentagon.

To contact Bill Ryan or Kerry Cassidy, please e-mail us at support@projectcamelot.org


cms.animalfarmshow.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 9-4-2009 by News And History]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
That's what you get when you leave BLANK PASSWORDS for hundreds of administrator computers across Defence and NASA networks in the US.

Sheesh. Have they got Rhesus Monkeys managing their sensitive data over there?


All McKinnon did is run a simple Pearl Script that searched for blank passwords and he was in.
And along with him an almost "permanent tenancy" of hackers: www.dailymail.co.uk...

No one deserves a potential 70 years in jail for that.
Christ, McKinnon didn't rape and torture people here for god's sake.

Matthew Bevan, another British "hacker" is also worth noting for its similarity to McKinnon’s case; Bevan was also charged with breaking into Pentagon and military-related networks in search of evidence of extraterrestrials and UFO’s in 1996. This was called "Cyber-terrorism" by the US Senate in 1996 but despite the fact he did exactly the same thing McKinnon did all the charges against him were dropped and he spent a mere 18 months in prison:
www.theregister.co.uk...

It's quite obvious why they're trying to make an example of McKinnon.

He did this shortly after September 11, during an era where the Government was facing intense criticism for it's handling and prevention (or lack thereof) of the attacks. Not to mention the WMD/Iraq Intel blunder by the Intelligence Agencies and numerous other completely incompetent errors made by bureaucrats which comprised American integrity as well as security.

McKinnon showed the world even their military networks were as easy to penetrate as fly screen doors.

No one likes having their weaknesses shoved in their face. It's nothing but but a case of the Pot calling the Kettle black and trying to pretend like the US Government actually gave 2 fudgesicles about national security during Bush's reign.

As McKinnon himself said: "Lucky it was only me and not Al-Qaeda."

[edit on 9/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
That's what you get when you leave BLANK PASSWORDS for hundreds of administrator computers across Defence and NASA networks in the US.

Sheesh. Have they got Rhesus Monkeys managing their sensitive data over there?


All McKinnon did is run a simple Pearl Script that searched for blank passwords and he was in.


Yes, and that was the problem.
He wasn't supposed to be "in", even if their password was simply "password".

Same with identity theft. People can be careless with certain items that give access to their personal information rather easily.

Does that mean I have a right to go in and have a look?
Maybe copy some information I find interesting and spread the word about it?

Although I agree with you that they are using him as an example, and I don't think he should get 75 years but he should be punished in some manner.

He committed a crime and got caught.

- Lee



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   
I despise people who "hack." To me they are just another example of people who are too interested in what other people are doing, because they are too chicken to look at themselves.

Yet, they do contribute to the improvement of the protection out there.

I guess there is a such thing as yin and yang.


Instead of arresting him they should give him a job, which could be seen as the same thing as arresting him.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I have to say that the Animal Farm article has really changed my mind about this case. It's actually an excellent piece of journalism, well beyond all the other stuff I've been reading about McKinnon. Early on I was an enthusiastic supporter of McKinnon, and saw it as the evil US exacting retribution from a lone and semi-autistic hacker.

That article has actually changed my mind on all that. Not merely beacuse of the involvement of the odious Sting, which really ought to be a red flag in itself: but because it bursts some of the comfortable myths that surround the case, to wit:

  • McKinnon was going to be charged as a terrorist
  • he would end up in Gitmo
  • he was going to get a hugely disproportionate sentence
  • he hadn't caused any damage anyway
  • The US was taking a vengeful attitude
  • McKinnon was being extradited under a treaty which the US wouldn't ratify reciprocally

I believed all this stuff until about two minutes ago. The Animal Farm article has copious links and I was able to satisfy myself that its most (from my p.o.v.) outlandish claims were in fact correct. And I wasn't inclined to believe it because of this clause,


referring to the extremely disproportionate response of charging a 42-year-old man with computer intrusion, when all he did was intrude into some computers

which seemed rather dismissive of everything I'd heard about the case.

So the facts are that McKinnon did actually cause damage to many computers, and while one can quibble about the bill, sorting things out would not have come cheap; he was being offered a plea bargain that would have reduced his sentence to a maximum of 28 months by my reckoning (two years according to Lord Justice Brown, but this may have been an approximation); and that means that the sentence was not draconian.

McKinnon's lawyers opted to try to treat this plea-bargain as an erosion of his human rights, which I was able to ascertain simply by following links from the original story. According to Brown, the point of law on which this appeal to the Law Lords hung was:


“Is it an abuse of process of extradition proceedings, such that the proceedings should be stayed, and/or an unjustified interference with the defendant’s human rights, for the requesting state to engage in plea bargaining, including a threat to the defendant that, unless he agrees to be extradited, repatriation to the United Kingdom to serve any sentence imposed in the requesting state will not be supported by the prosecuting authority in the requesting state?”

Proceedings of the House of Lords Appeal Court

What doesn't come out in the original article is that McKinnon claims that he was "just looking". This is a claim I initially believed, but now I'm at the very least on the fence about. I hadn't seen that he admits he left a note on a previous intrusion:


“US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days . . . It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year . . . I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels . . .”


Note the word "disrupt".

I would recommend that people read the link I've posted. Bear in mind that it refers to McKinnon's alleged offences, and quite rightly, as they have not yet gone through the legal process. So it's possible to treat the US allegations with a pinch of salt.

BUT, if it's true that McKinnon has admitted leaving that note - and it's just about possible to imagine that that is a fabrication, but as yet I don't see any evidence to support that - then it's likely that he wasn't "just looking" and did disrupt systems.

And in that case the US version of events is internally consistent, and I have to conclude, "Gary, mate, if you can't do the time, you shoudna done the crime".



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 



So the facts are that McKinnon did actually cause damage to many computers


Dubious assertion at best.

The consequences of McKinnon’s actions are still hard to gauge because the US State Department has not been consistently clear in alleging what McKinnon is responsible for.

They have variously claimed the figures of $900,000 dollars in total damages as a result of his actions, but also erroneously $700,000 dollars. Just as misleading is the claim that McKinnon had somehow disabled 2,000 government computers in Washington, while other American sources claim only 300 were shutdown.

Some accusations have been levelled at him that are not formally included in the case against him and have been vaguely attributed, such as deleting passwords or ‘key files’ necessary to start up some machines on certain networks or that he was trying to gain access into classified information networks.

Even the number of computers McKinnon was supposed to have breached into is in dispute, with figures of 100, 98, 97, 92, 90, 53 or less being thrown around by US Attorneys.

The discrepancies in his charges along with the difficulty in estimating monetary damages and lack of references makes it quite clear even the Government really has no idea whether or not McKinnon did anything malicious to begin with and are simply trying to milk this incident for it’s worth.

Remember:

-McKinnon used a dial-up connection, so the chances of him downloading significant portions of proprietary or secret data are slim to nil.

- Even if McKinnon did delete some files it begs the question, how does simply deleting passwords or gaining administrator privileges on computers cause almost $1 million dollars in damages?

-Particularly at government institutions like a Naval Weapons Station or a NASA imaging facility, which for the most part are completely insignificant government installations with only the Naval Weapons Station possibly possessing any truly secretive information (the one in question was a base responsible for rearming battleships).



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
We should care what a washed up singer and very poor actor named Gordon Sumner has to say about the issue? Why?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonking76
 


do you know that computers , software and the internet its self would not be what it is today if it was not for Hackers.

the fact is he committed a crime and at that he failed to even obtain and solid evidence other then the fact that our Defense department is full of morons. He should be punished.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   


the fact is he committed a crime and at that he failed to even obtain and solid evidence other then the fact that our Defense department is full of morons. He should be punished.


And which country should be punished in?

The US, I do not think so, he should be punished in the UK, not the US. What are the US Officials going to do if his appeal is upheld?

I do not think people who knoe mr mckinnon is going to standby and let america athourities come over to the UK and arrest him, The would have a riot on thier hands.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Laurauk]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
So he infiltrated all those systems on dial up?
not likely. He got caught and the gov't is infalting the case to make an example out of him nothing more.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laurauk


the fact is he committed a crime and at that he failed to even obtain and solid evidence other then the fact that our Defense department is full of morons. He should be punished.


And which country should be punished in?

The US, I do not think so, he should be punished in the UK, not the US. What are the US Officials going to do if his appeal is upheld?

I do not think people who knoe mr mckinnon is going to standby and let america athourities come over to the UK and arrest him, The would have a riot on thier hands.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Laurauk]


So, by using you logic, it would be OK to try a US citizen in a US court using a jury of US persons for the offense of sending mail bombs to the UK, which killed and maimed UK citizens? You wouldn't want to extradite this person to the UK to stand trial? Or, what if some US citizen used the internet to swindle hundreds of UK pensioners out of their life savings via some internet scam, leaving them penniless? What, if by some oddity, US law didn't consider this a crime? Would you not want this man appearing in a UK court to answer for his crimes?



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

They have variously claimed the figures of $900,000 dollars in total damages as a result of his actions, but also erroneously $700,000 dollars. Just as misleading is the claim that McKinnon had somehow disabled 2,000 government computers in Washington...



... next news title...

Garry Mckinnon is now guilty of misdirecting over 600,000,000,000 tiny transistors to switch in directions other than where their owner wanted.

lol.



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   


So, by using you logic, it would be OK to try a US citizen in a US court using a jury of US persons for the offense of sending mail bombs to the UK, which killed and maimed UK citizens?


Why shouldnt it be oks, we are after all meant to be allies! Why is the Pentagon so hell bent on having this guy extradited to the US?? Why cant we put him on trial here?



What, if by some oddity, US law didn't consider this a crime? Would you not want this man appearing in a UK court to answer for his crimes?


I would rather see him stand trial in the UK rather than in the US tyvm. Alot of his family, friends and relatives, as well as Human rights groups, lawyers, in the UK would prefer him to stand trial in the UK rather than in the US also. I wonder why Hmms (sarcasm).

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Laurauk]

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Laurauk]



posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Pyros
 



it would be OK to try a US citizen in a US court using a jury of US persons for the offense of sending mail bombs to the UK, which killed and maimed UK citizens?


It's funny you bring that irrelevant analogy up because look what the US Department feels regarding that issue:


The Bush Administration’s Shameful Rejection of Venezuela’s Extradition Request

The State Department’s summary and insulting rejection of the extradition request issued by the government of Venezuela for Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles was as shocking as it was predictable. The decision not to hand over Posada to be tried for his alleged role in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban jetliner which 73 innocent people were killed

havanajournal.com...

Could you get any more sensational?

McKinnon didn't injure anyone. He didn't threaten anyone and he most certainly never attempted to harm people directly or indirectly.

I could see the validity of your analogy if McKinnon's trespassing actually endangered people's lives but alas, it was merely that, trespassing.


Or, what if some US citizen used the internet to swindle hundreds of UK pensioners out of their life savings via some internet scam, leaving them penniless?


What if you just thought this out rationally?

Let me put forth an analogy to you:

An American citizen hacks into MI5 and searches for evidence of UFO's.

Do you honestly believe the US would ever bother with extradition?


What, if by some oddity, US law didn't consider this a crime?


Obviously then you're not well versed in current US Law:

A very recent amendment now passed in the US requires no proof of damage to be present when dealing with breaches into Military networks, just in time to nail McKinnon and make a scapegoat out of him
blog.wired.com...

US Law has some of the most ridiculous, flip-flopping verdicts on Cyber Crime ever witnessed:


A hacker who unsuccessfully attempted to steal credit card numbers by infiltrating the WiFi connection used by a Lowe's home improvement store recently received a nine year sentence despite the fact that he never actually got any credit card numbers. By comparison, Shadowcrew fraud ring leader Andrew Mantovani only got two years for using phishing techniques to steal credit card numbers which were then used to make purchases online

arstechnica.com...

Whoopi-do.

Let's base suspects sentences on the amount of “potential damage” they COULD cause through their actions rather than actual damages or losses of life.

Remind me, do they give out a noble prize for "Attempted Chemistry" too?

[edit on 9/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   
He's not a violent heathen, like each world-leader in global-government. He doesn't deserve to be treated like he killed anyone or trashed any honest peoples' properties.

Gary McKinnon Hacker MP3 Podcast - Disclose.tv

We devote the entire podcast to the strange tale of Gary MacKinnon, a British hairdresser turned computer hacker who is wanted by US federal prosecutors. MacKinnon is accused of committing "the biggest military hack ever." MacKinnon says he wasn't being malicious; he just wanted to find out if the US government was withholding information about UFOs. We examine the case, in full, today on The World's technology podcast.


[edit on 10-4-2009 by News And History]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:00 AM
link   
My only thought on this...

When the US starts handing over people for extradition, then they can claim the moral high ground.

Until then, other nations should do exactly the same as the US regarding extradition.

Typical double standards



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
My only thought on this...

When the US starts handing over people for extradition, then they can claim the moral high ground.

Until then, other nations should do exactly the same as the US regarding extradition.

Typical double standards


What makes you think for a moment that the US doesn't abide by our Extradition Treaty with the UK? About 30 seconds worth of Google search was able to provide this link.

We send criminals and the accused back and forth between our countries all the time. It is regular business. It just so happens that in McKinnon's case he has a lot of undue support from within certain British circles - those who hate the US government, and those who wear tinfoil hats to bed. Normal law-and-order British subjects don't seem to mind as much.

The man hasn't been found guilty of anything yet, fer crying out loud. But he will get his day in court. I hope he gets new lawyers - his current group has screwed him over pretty badly. He should have copped a plea. He would have done 1/2 his time in a British facility, and he would have been home by now, writing his book.........



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
7 people in 3 years?

You think that makes it a good record? and for the following crimes:
· Murder
· Obtaining a money transfer by deception
· Burglary
· Drugs Offences
· Sexual Offences
· Manslaughter, and conspiracy to rob
· Child Abduction
Of which only 3 were US nationals

The US has long had a policy of refusing to extradite their own citizens - even to their supposed partners in the "special relationship"

Now if you found a list of all those who have NOT been extradited, that would make for interesting reading.

As it is, I stand by my assertion.


As recently as December 2003 Baroness Scotland admitted that the Act introduced an imbalance in extradition procedures between the UK and the US. She told the Lords committee in December 2003 that, "When we make extradition requests to the United States we shall need to submit sufficient evidence to establish 'probable cause'. That is a lower test than prima facie but a higher threshold than we ask of the United States, and I make no secret of that."

In Article 8 of the Act the necessary requirements for extradition are laid out. A copy of the warrant or order of arrest is required as well as a copy of the charging document, if there is one. Point 3c lays out the special case for the US.

It says: "For requests to the United States such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offence" is required.

For extradition from the UK to the US however now such evidence needs to be provided.

"It's terribly unfair and lopsided," QC Paul Garlick told FactCheck. He says that a warrant for arrest - the only item now needed for extradition to the UK - can be granted on very little evidence.

source

[edit on 10/4/2009 by budski]



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join