Free Gary McKinnon

Up-date: Gary is once again subject to a Military Commission.
============================================
============================================

Eochaidh's abstract of Obama's new Executive Order: Years ago, Gary's support team expressed a fear that he was subject to trial by a military commission. This would have been a violation of his rights according to British and EU law. That was probably one reason he hasn't been extradited, though his government doesn't have to say it and strain U.K.-U.S relations. Read about Gary now, once again, being subject to no rights, not even Habeas Corpus" If Gary is under any court approved restrictions while he has been waiting for closure in his extradition case, then in affect, he has been in indefinite detention these 9 plus years. That's a violation of his British and E.U. rights. So, let Gary go or at least remove his "chains."

I hereby declare myself to be an "unprivileged enemy belligerent." I no longer violate U.S. law. There is no more law in the U.S., if words still have meaning. But, to be politically correct (P.C.): "Brain-washed," I am now a law-abiding citizen; though, anti-authoritarian. It's good to be back.
============================================
============================================

Full Article:

http://www.rense.com/general93/obms.htm

`Obama's Lawless Authorization Of
Military Commissions Injustice'

By Stephen Lendman

3-9-11

"On March 7, New York Times writers Scott Shane and Mark Landler headlined, "Obama Clears Way for Guantanamo Trials," saying:

By Executive Order (EO), Obama authorized their use "with revamped procedures but implicitly admitt(ed) the failure of his pledge to close the prison camp."

-- ending torture, closing Guantanamo, and assuring due process and judicial fairness in civil courts for everyone brought to trial based on hard, not secret or bogus, evidence.

Instead, Obama's March 7 EO authorized indefinite detentions and military commissions in violation of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, stating:

"No person....shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

Indefinite detentions and military commissions are lawless, indefensible, unjustifiable practices that democratic civil societies don't tolerate. They're reminiscent of Nazi Germany and Stalinist show trials, assuring guilt by accusation.

The full text of Obama's EO can be accessed through the following link:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2011/03/periodic-review-of-individuals-
detained-at-guantanamo-bay-naval-station-pursuant-to-the-authorizatio.php?page=1

A previous article explained the following:

Section 1031 of the FY 2010 Defense Authorization Act contained the 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA), listing changes that include discarding the phrase "unlawful enemy combatant" for "unprivileged enemy belligerent." Language changed but not intent or lawlessness. Obama embraces the same Bush agenda, including keeping Guantanamo open after promising to close it, and allowing torture there and abroad.

MCA grants sweeping police state powers, including that "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever....relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission (including) challenges to the lawfulness of (its) procedures...."

MCA scraped habeas protection (dating back to the 1215 Magna Carta) for domestic and foreign state enemies, citizens and non-citizens alike, and says "Any person is punishable... who....aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures," and in so doing helps a foreign enemy, provide "material support" to alleged terrorist groups, engages in spying, or commits other offenses previously handled in civil courts. No evidence is needed. Those charged are guilty by accusation. The hangman or a firing squad awaits. Appeals aren't allowed.

Other key provisions include:

-- legalizing torture against anyone, letting the president decide what procedures can be used on his own authority;

-- denying detainees international law protection, letting the executive interpret or ignore it;

-- letting the president convene military commissions at his discretion to try anyone he designates an "unprivileged enemy belligerent," detaining them indefinitely in secret with or without evidence;

--denying speedy trials or any at all;

-- letting hearsay and secret evidence be used;

and

-- denying due process and judicial fairness, destroying human dignity, mocking the rule of law, and sanctioning kangaroo court injustice for anyone the executive targets with or without evidence.

In other words, the rule of law is null and void. Whatever the president says goes. No one any longer is safe, including US citizens. Police state America leaves everyone potentially vulnerable, even those most law-abiding.

Currently, 172 detainees are at Guantanamo. Many remain uncharged and are held indefinitely. Others will be lawlessly tried. Obama contemptuously claimed:

Indefinite detentions and military commissions will "broaden our ability to bring terrorists to justice, provide oversight for our actions and ensure the humane treatment of the detainees."

No matter that virtually everyone at Guantanamo is innocent. Yet they've been lawless detained extrajudicially, and subjected to unspeakable tortures and ill-treatment, most, in fact, for years.

Human Rights organizations condemned Obama's EO. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) said the following:

"Today's executive order....codif(ies the lawless) status quo. The creation of a review process that will take up to a year (then repeated quadrennially) is a tacit acknowledgment that the Obama administration intends to leave Guantanamo as a scheme for unlawful detention without charge and trial for future presidents to clean up," though who'll be courageous enough to try.

The ACLU said the following:

Flaunting international law, due process, and judicial fairness, "the Obama administration....institutionaize(d) unlawful indefinite detention (and) revive(d) the illegitimate Guantanamo military commissions....The detention of Guantanamo detainees for nine years without charge or trial is a stain on America's reputation that should be ended immediately, not given a stamp of approval."

Military commissions under past or revamped rules assure guilt by accusation. "The only way to restore the rule of law is to put an end to indefinite detention at Guantanamo and the broken commissions system..." Obama's EO showed contempt for lawful justice and fairness.

Using weasel words, Obama continued the same Bush lawless practices against anyone claimed to threaten national security, including US citizens, many rotting in federal prisons unjustly.

...Amnesty International (AI) unequivocally denounced Obama's "new policies," saying:

"With the stoke of a pen, President Obama extinguished any lingering hope that his administration would return the United States to the rule of law by referring detainee cases from Guantanamo Bay to federal courts rather than the widely discredited military commissions."

His March 7 EO "completed the embrace of Bush era counterterrorism policy. For the new Periodic Review Boards (PRBs) are little more than a cosmetic rebranding of the much derided Combatant Status Review Tribunals that operated in Guantanamo during the Bush administration....(Obama's) 'new' policy....amounts to little more than an elaborate shell game."

In fact, it's worse by claiming responsible change as cover for continuity, one of many reasons why Obama exceeds the worst of George Bush at home and abroad, yet too few people know it."

If Gary allegedly committed offences on US soil then why is my US web hosting provider (which is wholly based in the US) insisting that I pay VAT? I am not importing anything and the web servers I usually use are based wholly in the US and the US company in question has no offices outside the US, but they insist that legally according to EU directives the transaction is taking place in the UK thus I must pay VAT. If I must pay VAT for US web services then those web services are actually being provided in the UK thus Gary's hacking of US computers actually happened in the UK thus he has committed no crime in the US, according to EU business directives. I will be getting my web hosting from India in future!

@ Annoymous

I will be getting my web hosting from India in future!

HMRC will still try to collect VAT from you or your credit card company or PayPal etc.

@ Eochaidh - it is hard to say if Gary's risk of facing a Military Commission has changed at all.

The UK Home Office wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds on "specialist legal advice" and delayed the case by months on this issue.

The US Government sent an unsigned Diplomatic Note from the US Embassy (all "Diplomatic Note" communications between sovereign governments, are, by tradition, unsigned) vaguely promising that he would not face a Military Commission.

However, as his lawyers pointed out at the time, this State Department promise cannot possibly bind the President, should he choose to declare someone an Enemy Combatant i.e. it is not worth the paper is is written on.

One would have hoped that President Barack Obama would not do so, but then he has betrayed his Election promise to shut down the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp, so he cannot be trusted any more than former President George W. Bush.

It is unlikely that Gary would be shipped off to Guantanamo Bay, but he could be subjected to Special Measures, where he cannot choose his own lawyers and can be denied the right to cross examine Government witnesses e.g. the idiots who were responsible for the lamentable state of US Military internet insecurity, both before and after Sept 11th 2001 terrorist attacks, or access "secret" information. essential for his defence case.

The irony in :: open government vs. unauthorized access ::

Expanding on the theory that an open government would make it so that any decisions that are made are the resistant of a large group of minds with varying degrees of direct lintel related to the topic at hand we can assume that the decision then would be the most logical path.

There would be no human rights abusing extradition treaty.

Unauthorized access being a construct of interpretation dealing with the attempt to restrict or impede the access rights of all citizens to obtain exposure to the accurate unadulterated truth to dispel the media sensationalization deliberately confusing issues of national importance inversely terse is our right to authorized access.

There would be no paranoid unauthorized access.

In Canada - this is the legalities pertaining to secret official password exposure. There is, I deduce, similar legislation in USA where the data breach for the Gary McKinnon case transpired.

Question - Why was there no charges laid against the NOC, Security Chief, Administrators or whom ever was at fault for leaving default accounts on the machines? As well, the failure of any Audit or lack thereof by the IT Security team to catch the most basic of security rules - no default admin accounts active?

This should be of the highest importance to a state paranoid of terror. The inside threat to exposure or espionage perhaps is the greatest threat of all - a form of treason. Who is to say that the 911 event was not deliberately orchestrated by employing a convenient security hole left on purpose by an inside presence to gain access to the war games scenario and other data used in the 911 event.

Where are the names of these personnel who were in charge of the IT systems and security at the time. Can anyone show me this list? I theorize that this is what transpired - ergo the blame and focus was placed on Gary McKinnon to save US face.

http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-5/page-3.html

4. (1) Every person is guilty of an offense under this Act who, having in his possession or control any secret official code word, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information that relates to or is used in a prohibited place or anything in a prohibited place, or that has been made or obtained in contravention of this Act, or that has been entrusted in confidence to him by any person holding office under Her Majesty, or that he has obtained or to which he has had access while subject to the Code of Service Discipline within the meaning of the National Defence Act or owing to his position as a person who holds or has held office under Her Majesty, or as a person who holds or has held a contract made on behalf of Her Majesty, or a contract the performance of which in whole or in part is carried out in a prohibited place, or as a person who is or has been employed under a person who holds or has held such an office or contract,

(a) communicates the code word, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information to any person, other than a person to whom he is authorized to communicate with, or a person to whom it is in the interest of the State his duty to communicate it;

(b) uses the information in his possession for the benefit of any foreign power or in any other manner prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State;

(c) retains the sketch, plan, model, article, note, or document in his possession or control when he has no right to retain it or when it is contrary to his duty to retain it or fails to comply with all directions issued by lawful authority with regard to the return or disposal thereof; or

(d) fails to take reasonable care of, or so conducts himself as to endanger the safety of, the secret official code word, password, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information.

Gary McKinnon does not have a mental illness fact. He hacked for whatever reason into the pentagon and wherever else knowingly. He should therefore go to the USA for trial as all the others who have hacked companies and institutions in the USA.

His claim and/or others claims that McKinnon has a mental illness are unfounded. As far as funding for his treatment being stopped by psychiatry is concerned I do not believe that completely as the NHS is still cradle to the grave whether you can afford it or not.

The psychiatric service will mostly treat an individual with medication for corporate reasons in other words for professional and financial reasons (ELI-LILLY, NOVARTIS and Co et al). McKinnon must be refusing treatments or he is not considered to have an illness. Autism is not an illness it is a condition that can go unnoticed and does in many people.

Gary McKinnon looks and sounds like he knows what he is doing and saying and is aware of his circumstances, if you look at his videos on YOUTUBE.COM you will get a better picture.

Go to jail gary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNsah-0vpY&feature=related

@scoobuss - you are wrong about this case.

He should therefore go to the USA for trial as all the others who have hacked companies and institutions in the USA.

There have never been any extraditions to the USA on computer crime charges. They have all been dealt with here locally under the UK Computer Crime Act 1990 etc. Why not treat Gary McKinnon like all the other cases ?

Similarly, there have never been any extraditions of US computer criminals to any other country at all, especially not to the United Kingdom.

Gary has always said that he would face time in prison, if he had to, but that he should get a fair trial here in the United Kingdom, based on actual evidence against him.

He is accused of "attacking" the US Military, something which not even the British detainees held in Guantanamo Bay were ever accused of, so his chances of a fair trial in the USA are less than zero.

Gary was only diagnosed with autism well after the case had already dragged out far longer than anyone had expected - he has a strong case for justice here in the UK, even without his health complications.