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:Where does the PATRIOT act come into this?

[EvanED]

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