tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5680771968888528726.post7943678418004883706..comments2023-11-05T00:38:56.097-07:00Comments on 21st Century British Nationalism: The Gary McKinnon Defence He Should RunDefender of Libertyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16093052197059748663noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5680771968888528726.post-73666187101857781122009-08-01T20:39:57.909-07:002009-08-01T20:39:57.909-07:00"Guantanamo Bay as a terrorist!"
Andras..."Guantanamo Bay as a terrorist!"<br /><br />Andraste, <br />Read the above guardian article by ronson, the US prosecutors have already stated that he will likely face 18 months to 3 years. I doubt that he would spend more than 3 months behind bars, especially under this Obama administration.<br />Gary also damaged his own testimony by stating that he deleted US government files.<br />He also goes to state on the record that he saw craft which were satellites and not UFOs, and he admits to smoking "a lot of dope".<br /><br />This case has been blown out of proportion by the far left, the UFO conspiracy theorists, the Bush administration and the UK government.<br /><br />Gary will be in and out of a US minimum security prison before you know it. It's better he has his show trial, plays on his mental disability, pleads stupidity, plays up his far left tendencies and the far left Obama administration will give him a slap on the wrist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5680771968888528726.post-49016640711358458752009-08-01T12:39:50.568-07:002009-08-01T12:39:50.568-07:00It's a fucking disgrace how McKinnon is being ...It's a fucking disgrace how McKinnon is being completely fucked over by the absolute scum in the establishment.<br /><br />I fear he will attempt suicide, as he has already expressed such intentions due to the dire nature of being put on trial in the US.<br /><br />I am not sure if it is correct but I also read that rumours that he will be transferred to Guantanamo Bay as a terrorist!<br /><br />In respect of his legal defence. I know someone who was involved in a massive inductrial incident (I'll put it that to give more details would make it obvious who he is). Anyway, he was accused of causing several million pounds of damage to a public facility, admittedly he was intoxicated whilst "operating" very heavy machinery. Anyway, the prosecution stated that it was the accident was caused due to his intoxication, and the defence developed a brilliant defence. The man in question stated that the machinery he was using was defective and that he had pictures of the machinery he was using. Now the prosecution was in a dilemma because they could not question if his pictures were his machine because of they did so they would be admitting that there are other machines with defective controls. Therefore he got a reduced sentence because they had to accept that although he was intoxicated the machinery was in fact defective.<br /><br />Having no real knowledge of law it seems a good tactic to use to put the onus back on the prosecution and get them to prove the opposite to their position in order to make their case, as you state in your article Lee. The US would surely have to open up files to prove that McKinnon is not correct, and would they really want legal teams digging through NASA archives?<br /><br />Sorry for the long and tedious rant, I hope my point is clear.Andrastehttp://www.youtube.com/BNPCrusadenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5680771968888528726.post-86799405448559158512009-08-01T06:55:22.209-07:002009-08-01T06:55:22.209-07:00http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/01/gary-m...http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/01/gary-mckinnon-extradition-nightmareAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com