The fact that the Committee of the House of Lords has refused to hear Babar Ahmad's appeal.
The House of Lords have refused Babar Ahmad permission to appeal against his US extradition. The Lords concluded that the two points of Law presented to them were not matters of “public importance” and hence rejected the appeal.Babar Ahmad's lawyers are now taking the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights where it is expected that a decision will be given by Thursday 14 th June 2007. If they too refuse to intervene, then no other appeal stages remain and Babar Ahmad would be extradited to the US imminently.
This is very bad for Gary McKinnon, as his case is almost the same as Babar Ahmad's on one of the two points of law which have been certified for submission to the House of Lords, i.e. regarding unsigned diplomatic notes etc. and Military Order No. 1 which decrees military tribunals rather than civilian courts, for those deemed to be "enemy combatants".
Strangely, Gary is technically more at risk of being labelled as a terrorist or enemy combatant than the radical Muslims Babar Ahmad and Haroon Rashid Aswat, who are not accused of "attacking" the US Military. Although Gary would be unlikely to be sent to Guantanamo Bay, for propaganda reasons, he could easily be subjected to the same sort of restrictions under the Special Administrative Measures scheme, at any other US Federal prison.
Remember that the normal mode in which the US prison and justice system operates in, is that anyone who has legally fought extradition to the USA is deemed to be a "flight risk", and is therefore not granted bail, and is remanded to prison, awaiting trial. Exceptionally, after huge publicity in the UK, the NatWest 3 bankers were allowed bail, presumably for media spin purposes - N.B. they are still awaiting trial nearly a year after their extradition to the USA.
The ECHR has now temporarily stayed Babar's extradition pending his ECHR appeal.
Strangely, Gary is technically more at risk of being labelled as a terrorist or enemy combatant than the radical Muslims Babar Ahmad and Haroon Rashid Aswat, who are not accused of "attacking" the US Military.
I'm sorry but what is a "Radical Muslim" and what evidence do you have to label Babar Ahmad as such? This term is usually used quite loosely whereby Muslims accused of terrosims crimes are labelled as radical or extremist Muslims. Ask the people who know him, Babar Ahmad is neither.
"The ECHR has now temporarily stayed Babar's extradition pending his ECHR appeal"....
Wonderful news Nefertiti & hopefully this will also help the case of others who are facing extradition unjustly.
Will Babar's lawyers be requesting his release from prison as he has now been locked up by UK authorities for several years without them bringing any charges against him.
This is another travesty of justice.
Jan
Good to see that the European Court of Human Rights appears to be standing up for the rights of British/European citizens.
Shame that the British government doesn't do the same but instead they just signed away the rights of British citizens (in secret of course)
Re-Labels:I agree that Labels are used much too loosely. Many newspapers have also used unjust labels against Gary; labels that can cause predjudice.
I don't believe fg meant any offence against Babar when he unwisely used the word radical.
fg has a link to Babar Ahmad's website on this website and he supports others who are fighting this unjust extradition treaty.
Referring to someone as having Radical thinking can be a huge compliment and can mean "forward thinking". The word radical is often used for inventors & truth seekers. Radical is a label often given to people who stand up for justice and are passionate in their beliefs....
but unfortunately the word Radical is now often used to create a negative view of someone and that's sad.
This website has a link to both Babar Ahmad's & the Nat West 3's websites;
It's a shame that Babar's website & The Nat West 3's website does not reciprocate this by having a link to the Free Gary Website.
Everyone should unite in fighting against the unjust extradition treaty which was signed in secret, as it affects the fundamental rights of all British citizens.
Jan
How exactly would you properly describe the co-appellants Babar Ahmad and Haroon Rashid Aswat ?
Simply calling them Muslims is inaccurate - they are rather more than the average Muslims I know.
I cannot see any sign of any evidence on which either man should be convicted of crimes in the United Kingdom.
It is extraordinary that the majority of the US allegations against them refer not to alleged acts of support for terrorism in the USA but to 3rd or 4th countries, i.e. Chechnya and Afghanistan, neither of which are pressing for extradition.
The unfair Extradition Act 2003 applies to all of us. Any one of us could be next to face the Kafkaesque nightmare of extradition without prima facie evidence.
Jan's point about the lack of a link back from the www.FreeBabarAhmad.com website is true.
"Simply calling them Muslims is inaccurate - they are rather more than the average Muslims I know."
More what?
I do not know anything about these two but perhaps they could be called 'activists' if they are campaigning on an issue of concern to Muslims.
Who cares about these stupid terrorist muslims? Relating the two seperate cases does no good to Gary's cause at all.
@ Marcus - in this country, they should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, on the basis of actual evidence, none of which has happened.
The Babar Ahmad case is a couple of months ahead of Gary McKinnon's in the legal appeals system. Some of the points of law, which is all that is being considered, not any actual evidence about either case, are exactly the same e.g. the question of the legality of the unsigned diplomatic notes promising not to send Gary (or Babar) to Guantanamo Bay etc.
Any legal decision in the Babar Ahmad case, sets a legal precedent which is very likely to be applied to the Gary McKinnon case.
On that basis, things are looking very gloomy for Gary in his legal fight against extradition to the USA.
I just found out from Gary (which has been confirmed by Gary's solicitors) that our Ex Home Secretary John Reid who has just left office along with Tony Blair, requested to be a respondent against Gary in Garys case.
Fortunately Gary's solicitor had her objections upheld and John Reid is now not allowed to be a respondent
but it makes you wonder what's going on when the Ex Home Secretary wants to be a respondent against Gary. What's going on & where's the impartiality?
I'm heartened by the ECHR decision in favour of Babar Ahmad (refusing his immediate extradition until they've looked at the case)
I honestly fail to understand why John Reid would actually want to be a respondent against Gary, especially as he has now left office. This makes me even more worried.
This the same John Reid who came from a poor part of Glasgow and used to be a communist. Has he been cloned I wonder?
From J (Gary's mum)
Here is a link re-the extradition treaty: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/02/nbrown302.xml
I have written to my MP requesting clarification of the above.
Gary mentioned in "Terrorist Update" on US military website. So he has already been tried has he ?
https://afopsnews.afmoa.af.mil/terroristUpdatesReport.asp?updateID=406
@ Nefertiti - that is just a republished CNN report on a US Medical military website from 2 years ago.
The article does say that the US Prosecutor said:
To: J (Gary's Mum)
I was wondering if fg was J. At least I didn't go off half-cocked. Two corrections: 1. Clann Colquinn or whatever, was the clann that opposed the Trident submarine base. So, Gary didn't get into the U.S. Predator data base that way. 2. The two British court documents recommended by fg, Gary's and the two Muslim men were worded different. Gary's was Gary and the U.S. Government. The two Muslim men's was So and So versus the U.S. government and the Home Department (certainly a British Department).
The British courts would be expected to be impartial. Why is it "versus" for the Muslims, but "and" for Gary. Why is it the U.S. government and a British government entity "versus" the Muslims, but, just Gary and the U.S. government? For the court reporters or whatever British government bureaucrats to be able to word official documents differently in what amounts to a prejudicial manner makes me wonder if fg directed me to real official court documents. Thank god, the muslims' case is being reviewed another time.
J, Gary's court document stated that the court thought that a lawyer had helped you with the letter that you submitted to the court. Maybe you're a lawyer, maybe you're just smart or put in a great effort for your son. The court's statement about your letter makes me wonder about the court's expectations.
Also J, you wrote above:
"I honestly fail to understand why John Reid would actually want to be a respondent against Gary, especially as he has now left office. This makes me even more worried."
The Americans want to debrief Gary in person in order to learn how effective their mind control techniques were over the Internet. The Czech Republic is an American Ally. It's interfering with a more unified European Union as well as serving America's interests against Russia. Gary obtained the Internet software that he then used to get into U.S. military computers. The Czech company was a C.I.A. front company. The Czechs who put the software on the Internet were working for American and Czech intelligence. People try to breach American security. The C.I.A. making software available to the public to seemingly do just that is what is known as "pro-active."
When Gary got into U.S. computers, the C.I.A. then used Skinnerian Operant Conditioning, bio-feed back from everything that he keyed in, the amount, the speed, etc., and sub-liminal seduction with subliminal messages, lighting, etc. The U.S. will claim that they did it to protect their computers. All of these deceptions are in the public domain.
The B.B.C. had an article today about Canadian citizens being victims of MK-Ultra, mind control by the C.I.A.
The thing is fg and J, any former British intelligence agent can tell you that Gary was manipulated over the internet, by the above techniques and more. For example, the list of U.S. space cadets and "Air-brush" woman at N.A.S.A. are classic countre intelligence.
Someone, talk with John LeCare or some former British intelligence agents. Is this half-cocked?: Gary drank alot of Fosters beer and smoked alot of pot because he was a victim of an Aussie C.I.A. psychiatrist working out of Oz.
Reply from Dominic Grieve MP who has consistently camapaigned against the Extradition Act 2003.
Dear Mr xxxxxxxx
Thank you for your email dated 9th July. I must admit that I am rather puzzled myself as to why John Reid applied to be a respondent against Mr McKinnon. Evidently he is no longer a Minister or member of the Government and therefore has little reason or mandate to be involved.
However, I feel I require more comprehensive information on the issue before I consider taking it further. That said, it certainly does sound like an issue that would need due consideration if it can be substantiated.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Dominic Grieve MP
These new extradition and cyber crime laws seem to have been put in place specifically to extradite Gary ! I've only recently heard about this story, but the first question that spring's to mind is " How is he a terrorist ?" Unless he is selling this information to rogue states he cannot be regarded as such. This is a blatant " witch hunt " and we the people should be applying for these Government agencies to be held to account for supressing revolutionary technology that could lead to free energy for the world. But no, instead the mainstream media seem to skirt over these details and hit us with the " Terrorist " label over and over again. We are the electorate and in a democracy the electorate should define the agenda's. We elect representative's that are supposed to represent what we want, but they dont, they force feed us fear in the hope that we'll forget what a Democracy is in the name of " security ?". We are being hoodwinked by a media that has become a government department and all of the recent Government Vs Media hype is a " red herring " to keep us from the overwhelming truth that they are one and the same thing. Nicola Tesla created a free energy technology by turning the planet into a gigantic dynamo in 1901 and the Wardenclyfe tower was dismantled in 1905 because JP Morgan who had funded the project, pulled his finances because there was no way of justifying charging the " people " for something that was free and renewable. So we still have Wars over an energy source that is null and void so that the powers that be can maintain that power. I've been told my whole life that we won the War against Nazi Germany !, but for me we lost the War to the Nazi's. From this day forward I will inform as many people as I can about Gary's case and make it a personal goal of mine to see him free ! Vive la revolution, FREE GARY NOW !
Gary's case hinges on the fact that he was a victim of U.S. C.I.A. MK-Ultra style mind-control and entrapment.
Briefly, the C.I.A. had some of its Czech agents set up an Internet front company that provided special software that seemed to allow unauthorized people to enter U.S. government computers over the Internet. A C.I.A. front company in a U.S. client state that identitifies potential Internet threats and neutralizes them before they can do harm is classic countre-intelligence and will be written about in some former operative's book, 20 years from now. Peter Wright (if he's still alive) and John LeCarre (David Cornwall) can verify the countre-intelligence aspects of Gary's case.
Once Gary was identified and neutralized, he was fed fake information from the computers that he thought that he had snuck into. Again, classic Countre-intelligence.
The good news is that Gary and\or his solicitor can identify the C.I.A's Czech Republic agents who ran the Internet front company and provided the hacking software. Czech intelligence may have been involved or Gary can expose some Czech intelligence agents who may have been turned by the C.I.A., if Czech intellilgence wasn't in on the front company run by their nationals. Otherwise, some naive Czechs got caught-up in some C.I.A. operation, maybe from the Cold War.
Now then, Gary is obviously a victim of mind control. It's so easy to manipulate anyone who wants something that he doesn't have. Gary wanted information. Part of the C.I.A's mission to protect U.S. computers from intruders over the Internet has to involve conditioning the threat to engage in self destructive behaviour. Such as drinking too much or smoking pot. Gary was conditioned and did not have free-will.
Another question is: did someone in London who was working for an intelligence agency, personally influence Gary to try to enter U.S. computers and\or re-inforce Gary doing so after he started. That person in London may have worked for some country other than the U.S. or the Czech Republic.
Read the below. Gary was obviously a victim of mind-control. Instead of a food lever, he had a key board. The American want him so bad because they don't want him figuring out what happened and talking about what happenen and they also want to determine how effective the modern long range mind control techniques were.
========================================================
"Mass Mind Control
Through Network Television
Are Your Thoughts Your Own?"
By Alex Ansary
Outside The Box
12-29-5
http://www.rense.com/general69/mass.htm
...One of the most common examples of mind control in our so-called free and civilized society is the advent and usage of the television set. This isn't to say that all things on TV are geared towards brainwashing you. They're not. But most of the programming on television today is run and programming by the largest media corporations that have interests in defense contracts, such as Westinghouse (CBS), and General Electric (NBC)...Radio isn't any different in its ability to brainwash a population into submission. Sixty-seven years ago, six million Americans became unwitting subjects in an experiment in psychological warfare.
"Montreal Court Case
Nabs CIA For Illegal
Mind-Control Experimentation"
More than 250 unsuspecting patients eligible for compensation, according to Canadian ruling. Critics of CIA-funded mind control programs call attention to the fact they are still going on today, as referenced in declassified documents calling attention to sinister operations called Bluebird/Artichoke and MKULTRA.
By Greg Szymanski
12-15-5
http://www.rense.com/general69/mind.htm
"These subjects have clearly demonstrated that they can pass from a fully awake state to a deep H controlled state by telephone, by receiving written matter, or by the use of code, signal, or words, and that control of those hypnotized can be passed from one individual to another without great difficulty. It has also been shown by experimentation with these girls that they can act as unwilling couriers for information purposes."
Another even more incriminating CIA declassified document revealed the following evidence of mind control used to turn people into assassins like depicted in the movie Conspiracy Theory starring Mel Gibson:
--------------------------------------------------------
B. F. SKINNER FOUNDATION
"A Brief Survey of Operant Behavior"
http://www.bfskinner.org/Operant.asp
In operant conditioning, behavior is also affected by its consequences, but the process is not trial-and-error learning. It can best be explained with an example. A hungry rat is placed in a semi-soundproof box. For several days bits of food are occasionally delivered into a tray by an automatic dispenser. The rat soon goes to the tray immediately upon hearing the sound of the dispenser. A small horizontal section of a lever protruding from the wall has been resting in its lowest position, but it is now raised slightly so that when the rat touches it, it moves downward. In doing so it closes an electric circuit and operates the food dispenser. Immediately after eating the delivered food the rat begins to press the lever fairly rapidly. The behavior has been strengthened or reinforced by a single consequence. The rat was not "trying" to do anything when it first touched the lever and it did not learn from "errors."
To a hungry rat, food is a natural reinforcer, but the reinforcer in this example is the sound of the food dispenser, which was conditioned as a reinforcer when it was repeatedly followed by the delivery of food before the lever was pressed.
An operant can come under the control of a stimulus. If pressing the lever is reinforced when a light is on but not when it is off, responses continue to be made in the light but seldom, if at all, in the dark. The rat has formed a discrimination between light and dark. When one turns on the light, a response occurs, but that is not a reflex response...
The lever can be pressed with different amounts of force, and if only strong responses are reinforced, the rat presses more and more forcefully. If only weak responses are reinforced, it eventually responds only very weakly. The process is called differentiation...
A response must first occur for other reasons before it is reinforced and becomes an operant. It may seem as if a very complex response would never occur to be reinforced, but complex responses can be shaped by reinforcing their component parts separately and putting them together in the final form of the operant...
The innate behavior studied by ethologists is shaped and maintained by its contribution to the survival of the individual and species. Operant behavior is shaped and maintained by its consequences for the individual. Both processes have controversial features. Neither one seems to have any place for a prior plan or purposes. In both, selection replaces creation.
Personal freedom also seems threatened. It is only the feeling of freedom, however, which is affected. Those who respond because their behavior has had positively reinforcing consequences usually feel free. They seem to be doing what they want to do. Those who respond because the reinforcement has been negative and who are therefore avoiding or escaping from punishment are doing what they have to do and do not feel free. These distinctions do not involve the fact of freedom.
The experimental analysis of operant behavior has led to a technology often called behavior modification. It usually consists of changing the consequences of behavior, removing consequences which have caused trouble, or arranging new consequences for behavior which has lacked strength.
Thank you Stu for writing to your MP. Gary's solicitor Karen Todner can confirm the facts Re-John Reid wanting to be a respondent in Gary's case.
I would like to write to Dominic Grieve as he totally understood the failings and the facts of the Extradition Treaty during the House of Commons debate.
His arguments against the extradition treaty were quite brilliant.
However most MP's are required to
return mail as unread if they are not from the borough in which you live.
Thanks again Stu.
Hello Honeybear.
Gary's court document did indeed state that the court believed that a lawyer had written or dictated the letter I submitted to them.
I'm not a lawyer, I'm a musician, as is Gary but like many parents I am capable of writing a reasonably intelligent letter, especially as my son's life is virtually at stake.
Unfortunately the courts appear to underestimate the intelligence of the average parent.
No one helped me to write the letter to the court but I was required to write a statement testifying that I had written the letter independently, with no help from a lawyer (or anyone else for that matter)
My education was unremarkable,I'm a mother and like any other parent, will fight to my last breath to protect my child.
My letter to the court was frank and in it I pointed out that the US government has already reneged on a promise to France not to request the death sentence for a Frenchman that was extradited to the US.
The prosecutors in the Frenchman's case reneged on their promise to France and did in fact request the death sentence on this man.
Only one vote by one juror prevented the sentence of execution taking place.
As the US stated in a "secret meeting" with Gary's solicitors....that one state wanted to "see Gary Fry" (A reference to the electric chair)
it becomes obvious that my fears are not as unfounded as some people may believe.
The UK court statement makes me wonder how on Earth many judges view the average UK citizen.
I'm also left wondering while the UK government will not allow a Russian man to be extradited to Russia (as his life may be under threat)
they are happy for the UK courts to accept an unsigned diplomatic note from the US embassy which laughingly is supposed to protect Gary if he is extradited to America.
We now have a new Prime Minister. Will he protect the rights of UK citizens as vociferously as he protects the rights of a Russian man accused of money laundering?
Time will tell...but in the meantime I wake up every morning gripped by terror and some days I find it difficult to put one foot in front of the other.
The past five and a half years have been a sentence on our family and it tears me apart to see someone as kind & gentle as Gary, having to wake up every morning with the fear and uncertainty of what might lie ahead.
Whatever happened to the statute of limitations.
By the way,I'm not fg; fg is much more intelligent than I am.
Best Wishes
Jan
@ Honeybear - you misunderstand the role of the Remote Control software - in order to install this sort of software, you need to already have Administrator privileges on the remote computer i.e. to have full control of it.
The RemotelyAnywhere software which Gary is alleged to have used is Hungarian not Czech and just enables the use of the Windows Icons Mouse environment (which is needed for many , but not all Systems Administrator functions), rather than a text only command line.
There are dozens of other standard software programs (including genuine Microsoft tools) which could have been used instead.
There is no evidence that your "mind control" conspiracy theories apply to Gary's case at all.
If you have any genuine evidence of "entrapment", then speak up as this could help Gary's case before the House of Lords - however, I doubt that you do.
Thanks fg,
Today on the Internet BBC News I saw several articles in a series about a "honey pot" that the BBC set up to learn about hackers. It's on the BBC right now. Security experts set up these honey pots all the time in order to learn about hackers, credit card
thieves, money launderers, etc. who use the break into others' computers. Law enforcement and private security firms then turn the tables on the intruders and the intruders now include code in their hacking software to detect if they've been detected. Obviously, without a doubt, when Gary logged into U.S. government computers, they turned the tables on him. Therefore, the information that he gathered (passwords, etc.) and the other mayhem that he's accused of, were actually enabled by the U.S. government - that's a matter of entrapment.
The BBC and other news services are now reporting the diplomatic tiff between Britain and Russia concerning Britain's extradition request of a former KGB agent. It's clear from the articles that Gary logically should have been charged with espionage for trying to obtain information from U.S. military computers. Because the U.S. is making a full court press to get Gary, not charging him with espionage when others who have done similar things, and according to BBC reports, have thereby committed espionage, indicates that Gary was handled in a classic countre-intelligence manner using false information, a dangle (N.A.S.A. air-brush woman), etc. That's part of the reason Gary wasn't charged with espionage and yet the U.S. government is going to such outrageous lengths to get him.
If Peter Wright was able to comment, I do believe that he'd agree that British Intelligence was also involved and that Gary was manipulated, fooled, and controlled.
Before I knew the involvement of intelligence, I had thought that Gary was in danger from the M.I.B. who would neutralize him in a typically brutal fashion as an example for others in the U.F.O. community - their violent crimes including murder are written about in Philip Caputo's book: THE DAY AFTER ROSWELL. Guess what, Caputo was murdered soon after the book was published. But now, as you yourself should agree, the list of Space Cadets, "air-brush" woman, and the rest of the information that Gary obtained is fake.
Peter Wright would have pursued the human element. Who was the British intelligence agent in London who guided Gary into his hacking and kept an eye on him?
@ Honeybear - although "honey pot" computers and networks are in widespread use, they are only used for intelligence gathering or computer security research into new methods and attack signatures, and to try to identify potential attackers.
They are not, and cannot, be used to gather actual evidence which is admissible in a Court.
They do not always work and can be detected by attackers, especially at the crucial point where the "honey pot" system is apparently under the control of the attackers, and is then used to attack another system, at another location, outside of the organisation which controls the "honey pot". By definition, the controllers of the "honey pot" have no control over these other targets, perhaps in another country, some of which may already be under the control of the attackers, who are checking for the presence of a "honey pot", or to download rootkits or other software tools.
"Honeypot " operators usually have to prevent their systems from allowing this sort of thing, as they will be blamed for and be legally liable for any attacks on third party systems launched from their "honey pot".
More seriously, any "evidence" gathered from a "honey pot" e.g. IP addresses e, times and dates, can easily be laughed out of court by the defence lawyers, who can rightly claim that they are fake or that entrapment has taken place.
There can also be no question of "financial damage" to a fake "honey pot" computer system.
There has never been any "computer hacking" case where anyone has ever been accused, let alone convicted of illegally accessing a "honey pot" computer system.
If you have evidence that any of the systems that Gary McKinnon is accused of accessing or damaging are "honey pots", then please speak up, as this could well help Gary's legal defence, however, I do not believe that you will be able to find any such proof.
It was Philip Caruso.
Believe me, Gary knows the difference between a honeypot and a poorly administered system.
Believe me, Gary was NOT led into doing this by anyone else. Not to say that mind control experiments don't exist, merely that Gary was not part of one.