Bioterrorism Charges Brought Against Professor

gnetwerker writes "Wired and others are reporting about artist Steve Kurtz, professor at Univesity of Buffalo (NY), and member of the Critical Art Ensemble will face a Grand Jury in two weeks on bioterrorism charges over artwork that used samples of harmless bacteria to make a statement about genetic engineering and food safety. He is charged with BioTerrorism under Section 817 of the PATRIOT Act. Apparently John Ashcroft can't tell a weapons lab from an art installation. There is more info and a Defense Fund on the CAE Defense Fund Site."

Comments

Damn, what a bad summary.

[Wavicle]

The guy is being charged because his otherwise healthy wife in her 40s, mysteriously died.

He is not being held on the patriot act, but a much older late 80's U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.

Good god. I'm not fond of Ashcroft or the PATRIOT Act, but not everything is a conspiracy, you know.

Re:Damn, what a bad summary.

[mcknation]

RTFA...Again

from the usa today sorce:

"Kurtz's 45-year-old wife, Hope, died of apparent heart failure and her death is not believed related to the suspect materials, authorities said."

Re:Damn, what a bad summary.

[Granos]

Actually, the wired article got it wrong, it WAS in fact the patriot act. In a subpoena, the government cites sections of the US Code, not the act that modified the US code. In this case, the 1989 act modified section 175, and the PATRIOT act later modified that same section. The 1989 act says "Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon" is commiting a crime. In this act, "`for use as a weapon' does not include the development, production, transfer, acquisition, retention, or possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes." This does not say that any other use IS "use as a weapon".

However, the PATRIOT act DOES make it bioterrorism to develop biological agents for any other reason than "reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose," even if it is NOT use as a weapon. From the wired article:

The subpoenas cited Section 175 of the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which prohibits the use of certain biological materials for anything other than a "prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose."

Since "bona fide research" is not present in the 1989 act, but is present in the PATRIOT act, and the fact that the PATRIOT act overwrote what was passed in the 1989 act, it is clear that the subpoena did in fact site the PATRIOT act.

Re:Damn, what a bad summary.

[_iris]

The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 was amended by the PATRIOT Act. Prior to these amendments, he would have been well within his rights.

The article doesn't say what the man is charged with. The subpoenas cite violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. Nothing in that act prohibits murder. Therefore, he is not being charged with murder.

Whomever rated the above comment 5:Interesting should be banned.

Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters

[C-Diddy]

Anyone reading the links in the story would quickly determine two key facts:

(1) You would discover, in both the Wired and USA Today pieces, that Mr. Kurtz is *not* being charged under the Patriot Act. If he is charged with anything, it will be an older act related to bioterrism. He is not being charged under the Patriot Act. He is NOT being charged under the Patriot Act (did it get through?)

(2) Mr. Kurtz hasn't been formally charged with anything. He is currently the subject of a investigation brought about by the death of his wife. This investigation may or may not result in an indictment. Take this fact into consideration before forking over $$ to this "defense fund" (for which there is a VERY convienient link).

From the Wired story: "The subpoenas cited Section 175 of the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which prohibits the use of certain biological materials for anything other than a "prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose."

Section 817 of the PATRIOT Act is not mentioned in either linked story.

Wow. Some people have been subpoenaed to get facts about this case. What an unheard of trampling of rights.

Someone needs to do some fact checking before posting.

Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters

[EvanED]

"You would discover, in both the Wired and USA Today pieces, that Mr. Kurtz is *not* being charged under the Patriot Act. If he is charged with anything, it will be an older act related to bioterrism. He is not being charged under the Patriot Act. He is NOT being charged under the Patriot Act (did it get through?)"

Read posts further up the page; while he IS being charged under the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, the specific sections of said act in question were amended by the Patriot Act. Previously, it was required that the bio agent be used as a weapon; now it is not so.

Re:Where does the PATRIOT act come into this?

[EvanED]

See comments further up. The Patriot act amended the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act.

This is actually valid.

[nberardi]

People know very little about the patriot act, it is actually hard to use it, because you have to convince a federal judge to grant a warrent under the act. It doesn't give the government a be-all end all right of invastion of priviouy, it just consolidates many of the common requests for wire-tapping and other things, that would require seperate warrents. So in essesnse it speeds up a process doesn't change it or grant any more rights or take away any more. This is probably one of the biggest mist conseptions that has been spread by the anti-patriot act people, and most of those people just use it to bash the president, they aren't really concerned with the rights of the people, just more of gaining power back.

Also in the wired article it states: "But Kurtz's work and his beliefs are more radical than those of many of his peers. He has written proposals for releasing mutant flies into restaurants, and demonstrated methods for destroying genetically modified crops. And it is Kurtz's views, his supporters say, that have Kurtz on the wrong side of a federal investigation sparked by the death of his wife, Hope Kurtz."

This professor has talked about in papers of releasing genetically engineered flies into resurants, and destroying crops that have been genetically modified. These might be on the lower end of the terrorism totem-pole, but it is still a terroist act. And all of this was sparked by a pecular death of his wife, normally deaths are handled by local cops, unless something really weird is going on that requires the FBI.

So this is IMHO a perfectly good use of the Patriot act. Just remember, that a judge has to agree to sign the warrent inorder for the patriot act to be used. And many of the Federal judges in the past couple of months have rejected the use of the patriot act for stuff they didn't deam in the realm of what is required to warrent one. In addition Ashcroft has been rejected many times by Federal judges including a couple big ones in Chicago about doctors records. So the author of this /. news post is totally off base and probably has a bias against Aschroft (i.e. Bush).

Take my comments at what you will, but if you want the real truth go read the patriot act on the U.S. Congress web site.

Re:The legacy of the Bush Administration

[wibs]

The relative term "last week" used by parent is misleading. The speech was actually delivered November 9, 2003, and the full version (longer than the excerpt posted by parent) can be read here.