A Plea for Mercy for Gary McKinnon

Post Reply New Topic

What some people don't realize is that Gary turned himself in. He told them he was scared he couldn't control his obsession and compulsion. He also admitted what content he was looking into and why, before he even had a lawyer present. He expects to pay a penalty, but let's look at this situation compassionately.

Another "Gary Says" story. Now where can I find a list of everyone logged in to Wrong Planet, and see what they are doing?

The Pentagon is an international group, with offices world wide. How did he look at the traffic? How did he know where it came from, and that they were hacking?

That is a much higher level of cyber spying than just looking for UFOs.

To do this would take also looking at the normal traffic, millions of messages a day, then figuring out who was not supposed to be there, and tracking them down. This is how he got caught, so the security system works.

This would take a top level domain, Administrator, and a lot of network skills.

Gary is lying about seeing lots of other hackers. If he is not, he was reading all of the messages to base commanders, State Department, then spotting the lurkers who were doing the same.

What he claims, seeing a worldwide network of hackers, is impossible.

Not that they do not exist, they show up everyday, most are logged, watched, and their mode of attack studied. We also have a full time staff of people with great skills who try everything to break in, find the holes, and then block them.

Gary is claiming he went to a security sweep level of viewing, which is a really dumb thing to say.

His claim means he was probing the security of the system, not just looking for UFOs.

If he could do that he could also see who in Great Britian was feeding information to the Pentagon.

This just gets deeper and deeper.

Now he feels suicidal? That will make his death look like it was caused by those evil Americans, picking on England.

When we catch someone up to no good they are offered a long prison sentence, or they can tell who shipped the drugs, who they were to be delivered to, and get a much lighter sentence. Most take the deal.

If it was just Unauthorized Access, we could make hundreds of cases a day.

Every keystroke was logged, Gary did something special.

There are so many details of this case that people do not know or haven't studied, before they attack Gary. I believe with any crime we should ask ourselves, "What is the motive?" and "What is the harm done?" before we automatically throw people in prison. I also think we should stay out of the British judicial process, since Gary is obviously not a terrorist.

Our country outlawed capital punishment in 2002 for mental retardation. You have to have an IQ below 65-70 to not get the death sentence. So that means someone with an IQ of 69 can kill someone and know full well what they did was wrong (because they are that high functioning to understand right from wrong) and they still won't get the capital punishment, instead they get a life sentence.

Well at least he was honest there. But suicidal? What was he expecting out of his confession?

Well the Brit police let him go and later busted in on him and confiscated everything when they realized he was actually serious. It seemed like a very innocent plea for help.. consistent with AS in my opinion.

Well put, and the reason trials are held.

As for the British judicial process, they should be put on trial next, followed by the government.

Gary is a spy, and they are his backers.

How do you know who is and isn't a terrorist? Government spy?

Gary is a lier with a very weak cover story.

I am still waiting to hear how to see people logged on from all over the world hacking.

Gary was caught, and has been telling a string of lies ever since.

okay, thanks, I wasnt aware they outlawed it

If I had to guess, I would say you are a older fellow, over 60, and was in the military? I dont say that because I agree or disagree with you, I say it only because the stuff you have said, seem like something I would hear from a older generation. I dont mean any offence by that.

But what you wrote here,

but the line before that you said,

now just think about that for a minute, what you said
how do YOU "know who is and isn't a terrorist? Government spy?", you dont know, so you couldnt possibly know that he is a spy and that the British are his backers

how do YOU know this?

I cant argue that he is innocent or guilty, as I dont know everything about what happend, and no body else here knows that much about it also, and you dont know anymore about it then us, so it seems that the only thing I can complain about is the flaws in our justice system, as even if they are guilty, they are still entitled to a fair trial, and I just dont think he will get a fair trial, being how the US labels everyone who breaks the law now as terrorist, and tries to make a example of them. The guy down the street sells a bong to a undercover cop, and they label him as a terrorist and send him away for a long time, and that is the truth, because of laws started by the Bush administration. Sure this guy should be punished for selling drug paraphernalia, but the punishment must fit the crime inorder to be fair. Every since they started the "war on terror", the government has thrown parts of the 4th, and 8th amendments out the window inorder to make examples of criminals in the name or "homeland security", meaning that it becomes a rights issue, and goes against what our country was built on, and goes against what it is to be a 'american'. So I hope that you (and everyone else) can atleast open your eyes and see that the government isnt always right, and that some things are a bigger issue then just guilty or not guilty

So I dont think he should be brought to the US for a trial, but it has nothing to do with him having aspergers, or if I think he is guilty or not

roadracer: Well said!

Yes, and all I am saying is that although he does deserve a punishment, it should be tempered with mercy. That's been my entire point. I also do think the US should back off and let Britain take care of this.

This is not an appeal for mercy, it is a plea for sympathy or perhaps pity. I think it is rather damaging to the neurodiversity movement and it could be used as an excuse for all kinds of discrimanation against us. Wouldn't a landlord have a point in refusing us a place to live, or an employer in denying us a position of any responsibility on the grounds "you might pull a McKinnon"?

Mercy would be called for after one accepts the responsibility for his actions which is precisely what McKinnon is refusing to do. Most people in that situation would have cut a deal with the U.S. Attorneys office years ago, the problem was that McKinnon would not even accept an offer for a six month sentence (source). So he appealed to the Court of Public Opinion, the Court of Brittish Opinion and the Court of Aspie Opinion; anything but a real court where he has no leg to stand on.

We all live in our own little worlds sometimes and visit reality only we have to or it suits us. But to visit reality when it would serve your special interest, and then expect to withdraw into your own little world when reality catches up with you, demanding justice, is pathetic.

mercy, you say?

but..but.. HE BROKE THE LAW11!!

More general concerns (that apply regardless of an ASD) are that the UK should not be applying a retrospectively legislated punitive measure to any of its citizens, should not extradite anyone to another jurisdiction where the punitive measures are disproportionately severe when compared to the same act in the UK, nor for acts that were enacted by a UK citizen within the UK’s jurisdiction, and without any known collusion with anyone acting criminally from within any other jurisdiction.

This is a matter that the UK should address independently of any other authority, and using the legislation that was in effect at the time the alleged acts were commissioned.



What I find damaging to the concept of neuro diversity, is when it is used to justify a lack of tolerance and appropriate accommodation of diversity.

ASDs manifest very differently from person to person, and it is ridiculous to suggest that as an unalterable rule, whether or not someone had as an ASD is automatically irrelevant if they come before the justice system.

Didn't he shut down thousands of military computers up and down the eastern seaboard??
What about This Article?

Are we saying AS "made him do it"?

And what about the threats? Ok, the "your security sucks" bits were one thing, but he also left this one:
I don't know if he's "the biggest cyber-terrorist of all time" but this wasn't some innocent little thing, nor was it something that any of us should want to become the public image of AS.

What amounts to a life sentence may be a bit excessive.. but this is not just some minor thing. It's a serious crime and really, really serious threats.

I am saying there is not enough information to determine what role AS might have played in influencing his acts. Are you saying that you know for a matter of fact that even though AS can interfere in acquiring and using common sense, appreciating the impact or consequences of actions, seeing things from another perspective, flexibility of thoughts, resisting impulses, particularly those subsequent to pathological interest and interest related activities, and in making sense of conflicting social and moral values, that it is impossible that AS could have influenced this person’s ability to fully appreciate the consequences of his actions?

Are you saying this even though the seriousness of these acts was not sufficiently obvious and common sense for them to be serious offenses within the jurisdiction where the acts were commissioned, contemporaneously with the acts?

If neurotypical legislators could not predict the seriousness of these acts before they were committed in order to legislate against them, then why do you expect someone with potential impairments in appreciting “common sense”, impulse control, appreciating the consequences and impact of their conduct, and seeing things from a perspective other than their own, while potentially under the influence of “interests” that further restrict and impair perspective taking, while being significantly compelling and further eroding impulse control, would have certainly appreciated and anticipated the seriousness (of these acts) overlooked by trained legislators whose job it is to predict and legislate against “serious acts”?



He allegedly left that message, and allegedly caused damage. These things have not been proven.

As to the seriousness of the above, are you suggesting that the explanations given by the US government referring to the security failings on Sep 11, are lies? That the US government is conspiring to cover up significant security failings surrounding this seminal event? Do you honestly think the recipient of the alleged message above, might honestly have believed this assertion, even though that recipient has publicly confirmed a contrary explanation for the security lapses on Sep 11?

No “threat” which is very obviously baseless and ludicrous to the recipient can be sensibly construed as serious.



The threats are not serious if the recipient could not reasonably be unaware that they were baseless, (and the “threat” above about Sep 11, would be obviously baseless to this recipient, given the recipient has inside knowledge about the security lapses referred to and that they could not have been caused by the message sender), and if the sender did not appreciate the serious nature and potential consequences of sending such a message. AS can interfere with the latter, and on the information available to me, I would not dismiss the possibility that it did, out of hand.