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.

 

Gary McKinnon suicidal following U.S. bullying

page: 12
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Visiting ESB
It was criminal to hide these things from us.


Ha, here it is again. The argument that the cover-up is a crime....Perhaps you meant to say the cover-up is immoral?


That's semantics.

"Crime an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be preosecuted by the state and is punishable by law."

For people who take office and swear oaths to uphold democracy and serve the people who elected them or pay their wages to then lie to the people and hide the truth from them, is criminal.

The people who ultimately control lawmaking and it's application are part of a criminal system and serve their own. So criminals dictate what is called 'crime' and what is not and selectively apply the label. Then people like you take their self serving doublespeak as gospel and accept only their definitions of of 'crime' as legitimate.

But the word 'crime' has other meanings, just as legitimate, which you seem to be ignoring:

"Crime an action or activity that, although not illegal [according to the previous definition] is consdered to be evil, shameful or wrong: 'they condemned apartheid as a crime against humanity'"




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
For people who take office and swear oaths to uphold democracy and serve the people who elected them or pay their wages to then lie to the people and hide the truth from them, is criminal.


That's a fine argument but doesn't hold water when there's also secrecy oaths for other reasons other than aliens or UFOs. Classification systems are established by legislation, so they are in essence, legal instruments.

Or are you suggesting that all classifications that prohibit public disclosure of information are criminal?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
But the word 'crime' has other meanings, just as legitimate, which you seem to be ignoring


I didn't. That's why I asked him if he meant immoral.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
Isn't hacking defined as theft or sabotage/damage? If so, the perp, in this case, did neither. All McKinnoin did was walk through an open door and peek in. Not his fault if government dips#*^s couldn't secure their own data properly. I wonder what's REALLY the deal with the far too common (especially in the Fourth Reich, I mean "US") violent hatred of McKinnon - putting him basically on par with a serial killer or rapist. Could it be because Gary actually stumbled upon the TRUTH, that there really IS a secret space program with "non-terrestrial officers" etc.? If so, he truly is a freedom fighter, and not anything even vaguely resembling a terrorist.


EXACTLY!!!

it was their fault that he got in, and i almost think that they had it so insecure for a purpose, just waiting for someone to get in so they could charge them and make an example of them...

also, everyone needs to watch this interview with McKinnon if they haven't already. that is, if you care about actually hearing his side to the story...


projectcamelot.org...

by the way, regarding the topic of this thread, wouldn't it be so convenient if Gary killed himself??...

i don't think he's suicidal at all, but i'll be glad to be proved wrong. i mean, did he say he was suicidal, or did the news say he was? don't most of the people who go against the government end up "killing themselves"? all i know is, is that if he ends up dying, then i'll practically know for sure that it wasn't a suicide based on past experiences with government whistle-blowers.......

[edit on 13-10-2009 by adrenochrome]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
This guy has pulled out all the stops to get sympathy from people, so he won't have to face his just desserts. He pulls out the sympathy card more than Jessie Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton pull out the race card.

If he didn't want his butt tossed in prison maybe he shouldn't have been haking our computers. DUH!



What exactly do you mean our computers? Do you work for the pentagon , or are you referring to the computers technically owned by the taxpayers who's money purchased them? If the pentagon can search its own citizens information , then the same should be true for the citizens our government is supposed to work for. Consider it the "Peoples Electronic Freedom of Information Act"



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Malcram
But the word 'crime' has other meanings, just as legitimate, which you seem to be ignoring


I didn't. That's why I asked him if he meant immoral.


LOL You miss the point. He meant 'criminal', and he was right.

It is criminal, by one of the accepted definitions of the word.

You are trying to limit the word criminal and crime to matters of state law, which is why you objected to the word criminal being used in this context, but the word has a broader meaning than that.

The cover up is criminal.

(I also feel it is 'illegal', but that is another issue)

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
It's ironic isn't it. If we hack into government computers looking to expose their crimes, then it's considered illegal, but if they do it, it's acceptable, even if it's not always legal. An example being the NSA's Echelon program in the UK, but they always get away with breaking the law.


www.converge.org.nz...

The British justice system is a joke. He should take his case to the the European Court of Human Rights and they'll probably block his deportation on the grounds that the American government supports the systematic use of torture against prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, which is probably where he'll end up and this is an infringement of his civil and human rights.

www.netmag.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
It is criminal, by one of the accepted definitions of the word.


And didn't I ask for him to clarify the definition?



The cover up is criminal.
(I also feel it is 'illegal', but that is another issue)


Now that we have clear definitions of what we're trying to say, feel free to give your explanation on why it is illegal in the other thread, if you'd like. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
What about the fact that the US left their so-called sensitive data unsecured and available publicly? [username: admin, password:admin would not count as a secure system]

What is the penalty for that then?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinni
 

The fact that those systems had weak or no passwords at all is irrelevant because all Government systems which are for restricted access must bear a warning before one logs in.

This way someone that doesn't have legitimate access cannot say he or she didn't know they were restricted systems, if and when they gain access.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Malcram
It is criminal, by one of the accepted definitions of the word.


And didn't I ask for him to clarify the definition?


That was a genuine request? If so, I apologize for my rather combative response. As you can probably tell, this issue gets me a little hot under the collar LOL. I took your comment "Ha, here it is again. The argument that the cover-up is a crime." to be an outright rejection of the idea, perhaps I misinterpreted.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Poor, poor criminal!!! There are too many people in support of this guy. Maybe because he was supposedly hacking for a good cause (in the eyes of his supporters)...the existence of aliens/UFOs. I don't give a damn, he hacked my government's computers and jeopardized potentially sensitive materials. If this guy's name was Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Ill or Hussein, then I doubt this thread would exist. He committed a criminal act, and under treaty must be extradited to the US to stand trial for his crimes. Let him give his sob story to the jury...they will decide if our government is wrong...not a bunch of bias bloggers.

Just my 2-cents

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by adrenochrome

by the way, regarding the topic of this thread, wouldn't it be so convenient if Gary killed himself??...

i don't think he's suicidal at all, but i'll be glad to be proved wrong. i mean, did he say he was suicidal, or did the news say he was? don't most of the people who go against the government end up "killing themselves"? all i know is, is that if he ends up dying, then i'll practically know for sure that it wasn't a suicide based on past experiences with government whistle-blowers.......

[edit on 13-10-2009 by adrenochrome]


To be honest that's the vibe I'm getting also. It's all too hard for the authorities, so they're just hoping he offs himself so they don't have to deal with the fall out over what he saw. I believe the suicidal stuff has come from psychological assessments, his own mother has talked about it in interviews. He's clearly suffering over the whole thing, it's inhumane. The US Penal system and the UK government will have a lot to answer for if he kills himself.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Jinni
 


Yeah! they deserve to be hacked for their stupidity alone. Why are computers containing highly classified & sensitive data even connected to the internet in the first place. You'd have to be crazy to trust these idiots in government with your own personal & sensitive data. National database, no thanks!



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Poor, poor criminal!!! There are too many people in support of this guy. Maybe because he was supposedly hacking for a good cause (in the eyes of his supporters)...the existence of aliens/UFOs.


Personally, I don't give a monkey's what he was looking for, he could have been looking for nude pictures of Laura Bush for all I care.

I support McKinnon purely on the basis of America's pathetically heavy-handed response to this and the sheer hypocrisy and one-sidedness that is being demonstrated.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
So i guess if i or someone else decides to successfully hack your home pc because i believe you may have ufo/alien files you will not have a problem with this, you will not seek to persecute him/her or who ever else is responsible ?

Or is it because its NASA or a government agency that its okay to hack them for the purpose of looking for alien/ufo files.

Just on a side note, all any related documents are classified as National Security. Do you understand. ?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
So i guess if i or someone else decides to successfully hack your home pc because i believe you may have ufo/alien files you will not have a problem with this, you will not seek to persecute him/her or who ever else is responsible ?

Or is it because its NASA or a government agency that its okay to hack them for the purpose of looking for alien/ufo files.


I would first and foremost blame myself for not managing the security of my system better.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
So i guess if i or someone else decides to successfully hack your home pc because i believe you may have ufo/alien files you will not have a problem with this, you will not seek to persecute him/her or who ever else is responsible ?

Or is it because its NASA or a government agency that its okay to hack them for the purpose of looking for alien/ufo files.

Just on a side note, all any related documents are classified as National Security. Do you understand. ?


I'm not sure whether this analogy works. Firstly, how or why would someone have ufo/alien files on their personal computer that would attract intruders in the first place? How would an individual be in that position? How would other people know about this information?

Sorry, whilst I appreciate what you're trying to say, the analogy is just too flimsy to give your point credence.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by tristar
So i guess if i or someone else decides to successfully hack your home pc because i believe you may have ufo/alien files you will not have a problem with this, you will not seek to persecute him/her or who ever else is responsible ?

Or is it because its NASA or a government agency that its okay to hack them for the purpose of looking for alien/ufo files.

Just on a side note, all any related documents are classified as National Security. Do you understand. ?


I'm not sure whether this analogy works. Firstly, how or why would someone have ufo/alien files on their personal computer that would attract intruders in the first place? How would an individual be in that position? How would other people know about this information?

Sorry, whilst I appreciate what you're trying to say, the analogy is just too flimsy to give your point credence.


Flimsy or not, if i suspect you have files you should not have, then i can use the same "flimsy" excuse as this individual has.

Hows that for a twin bladed knife.

*This is also used for suspected people who have illegal porn files, obviously its not legal but sure as hell has been successful



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
There is not much we can do here on ATS about how the laws will be interpreted concerning extradition and culpability. The British high courts have ruled for extradition and here in the US the ruling judges have decided there is enough culpability to bring very serious charges. I would normally write this off as just the US government setting an example by imposing an extremely harsh sentence to deter other hacker pests. Mckinnons defense of searching for UFO material that would implicate the US government is more than just a superficial excuse from my perspective, and that is what makes the case interesting.

Gary believes and understands that there is government deceit as is the prevailing belief here on ATS, so in a way ATS is on trial. His notes suggest that he was interested in the US governments involvement with 9/11. There is also his search for free energy sources. That possibly ties in with an old school crystal radio postulation that more energy can be harvested from a radio wave propagation then was used to power the radio transmission. My understanding at the time was that it might be some sympathetic resonance in the equation somewhere. I'm sure that in modern times zero point energy analysis has expanded the ledger and can very accurately account for this phenomena.

If we don't give the government some heat for their participation in the covert activities Gary was uncovering, the balance of power is going to go the way of our federal deficit.



new topics




 
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join