Slashdot Mirror


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."

120 of 611 comments (clear)

  1. Damn, what a bad summary. by Wavicle · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    1. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Azghoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice try, but the freaking out will continue unabated. :)

      And it's a grand jury, not like he's been formally indicted with anything yet.

      The level of conclusion-jumping around here is staggering. I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly.

    2. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by mcknation · · Score: 5, Informative


      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."

    3. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Good god. I'm not fond of Ashcroft or the PATRIOT Act, but not everything is a conspiracy, you know.

      I don't know what's been passed around here, but shouldn't they get some evidence of a crime first before they assemble a grand jury? As I understand it, they tested the lab equipment and didn't discover any bacteria or chemicals that warranted a quarantine of the residence, Mr. Kurst, or of the equipment (though obviously the equipment hasn't been returned). Mysterious deaths are suspicious, but one doesn't automatically start up a grand jury because of it.

      Besides why is the FBI involved? Suppose instead, that Kurst had rat poison all over the kitchen and his wife died from ingesting rat poison accidentally (eg, it got mixed in with her food by accident). Kurst would be legally responsible for the death of his wife (I gather it would be some sort of manslaughter offense), but it wouldn't be a federal crime.

    4. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Granos · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    5. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by _iris · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that still leaves an unexplained death. When a married person dies, the spouse is an automatic suspect worthy of at least some investigation since they have the most to possibly gain by the death.

      The fact that he's being questioned by a grand jury is not alarming... if he's charged then we're all going to deserve to see more proof as to why, but so far I see nothing wrong with trying to find out if there's a link to the suspect materials that we just haven't discovered yet.

    7. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The fact that he's being questioned by a grand jury is not alarming... if he's charged then we're all going to deserve to see more proof as to why, but so far I see nothing wrong with trying to find out if there's a link to the suspect materials that we just haven't discovered yet.

      The police generally don't host a grand jury unless they have a reasonable expectation that they'll be able to charge the suspect with a crime. If you're brought before a grand jury, then you should be concerned because that means there's a very good chance that you will be indicted (and hence go to trial) on something.

    8. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by FattMattP · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "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."
      Then why mention it at all? More poor journalism from USA Today.
      --
      Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
    9. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Which brings us to the obligatory... "Missuz Kurtz... she dead...."

      (Here's hoping somebody gets the reference....)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by CoolGuySteve · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only is art a "peaceful purpose" but if his bacteria is not harmful then isn't he also protected under free speech rights? I'm not American but this doesn't seem to fall under that 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre' example.

      Is the government allowed to confiscate tools used to create and distribute messages? Especially in a case like this where the communication is clearly both physically safe (I assume) and political.

    11. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Liquidrage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that still leaves an unexplained death. When a married person dies, the spouse is an automatic suspect worthy of at least some investigation since they have the most to possibly gain by the death.

      Umm, no. An "apparent heart attack" is an explanation.

      FYI: Just because someone dies doesn't mean there's a suspect. In fact, a vast majority of the time that is what happens. No suspect. It's pretty sad that I had to point this out.

    12. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Should whomever rated your commend 5:Informative be banned as well? You seem misinformed on legal matters. He hasn't been charged with ANYTHING at this point. That's what a grand jury does. For "capital, or otherwise infamous crime(s)" a grand jury indictment is required prior to charges. What that means varies state to state but murder ALWAYS counts. So for something like shoplifting, the prosecution just charges you with it by themselves. However stuff likemurder they have to present a case to the grandy jury, who has to return an indictment for murder. If they don't you don't get charged.

      It's a pre trial thing to keep people from being brought up on big charges with no evidence. The standard isn't very high, all the grand jury must find is legally sufficient evidence and reasonable cause to believe and they can return an indictment.

      So a murder charge may well be pending. Depends on what the grand jury finds. They may find there is no evidence of anything, and refuse to indicte him at all. They may indicite him on murder, and other charges.

    13. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by jtwJGuevara · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Good god. I'm not fond of Ashcroft or the PATRIOT Act, but not everything is a conspiracy, you know.

      And tell me, what part of the articles that were linked had ANYTHING to do with the Patriot act? This will get modded as flamebait, but seriously, allowing articles with falsified summaries to make it to the front page is not good AT ALL. It's not good for the slashdot admins because it makes them look careless and it's not good for us readers because we are being subject false information unless we read all of the links ourselves - which we know isn't happening for every article!

    14. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Wellmont · · Score: 2, Informative

      Everyone is missing the point entirely, the case is not a terrorism case, this is merely the federally apointed prosecutor charging him to the full extent of the law. That's why when you see a murder trial there's 10 charges the least of which is a misdemeanor.

      The big Pizza here is the fact that he violated a law by using live bacteria in a place where it was strictly against building code and health law. The Patriot ACT is designed to prevent a sleeper implimenting a similar "art project" and summarily infecting half of it's viewers. No need to go ape-shit over references to the Patriot Act in a Grand Jury proceeding.

    15. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Quixote · · Score: 2, Funny
      The police generally don't host a grand jury unless they have a reasonable expectation that they'll be able to charge the suspect with a crime. If you're brought before a grand jury, then you should be concerned because that means there's a very good chance that you will be indicted (and hence go to trial) on something.

      There's an oft-quoted saying in legal circles, 'a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if he chooses.'

    16. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 2, Funny
      The police generally don't host a grand jury unless they have a reasonable expectation that they'll be able to charge the suspect with a crime.
      Drawing on my many years watching The Rockford Files, I have to question this. I thought that attorneys general and their ilk convened grand juries. The police have nothing to do with it at all. Neh?

      And as we see in this episode, grand juries are subject to abuse by prosecuters. I can't believe there wasn't a link to this in the original article....

    17. Re:Damn, what a bad summary. by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on what you think the point of journalism is. If the point is to get people excited and sell papers, then perhaps it's excellent journalism. And they didn't even have to lie this time.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  2. OH MY GOD by Rupan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This man is an activist! What the hell is our government smoking? The man's wife died, which probably had an effect on his life and goals. Since when is a political statement grounds for federal charges? What will be next - will I br imprisoned for life without trial in solitary for burning a flag?

    Who else here thinks the government has gone too far? Is there no way to stop this insanity?

    --
    Ads? What ads?
    1. Re:OH MY GOD by gerardrj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when is a political statement grounds for federal charges?

      Since they enacted the Patriot act, and a slew of other "protect the people at all costs" bullshit excuses for more federal programs, police powers and general ickyness.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    2. Re:OH MY GOD by psykocrime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, times HAVE changed.

      No, they haven't. Not other than to the extend that people are buying into that very line.

      Times have NOT changed... this WAS, and IS a free country, where the people do not tolerate the government trampling on their civil liberties and natural rights. IF we begin to allow ourselves to believe that we must change THAT, then the terrorists have won, game over.

      Just as it was before, and just as it always will be, life is dangerous. Do it long enough and you die. Every one of us.... And so life in a truly free country may be a little more dangerous than life in a more tightly controlled country. Big deal... we're all gonna die eventually eitherway, and there's a reason that things like:

      Live Free or Die!
      and
      Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

      are rallying cries in this country. It's better to live, and die, having liberty, freedom, and the "right to the pursuit of happiness" than to live without freedom, IMNSFHO. And in the opinions of a great many Americans who have preceded me.

      The truth is, most Americans have more to fear from George W. Bush or John Ashcroft than they do from this professor, or even from Osama Bin Laden.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    3. Re:OH MY GOD by CrowScape · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since when is a political statement grounds for federal charges?

      Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

      US Sedition Act, May 16, 1918

      Worse than the PATRIOT Act ever dreamed.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    4. Re:OH MY GOD by the_mad_poster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, you should get your facts straight.

      The proper way to dispense of a worn out American flag is to burn it, optionally cutting it into pieces first. The purpose is to reduce it to a non-flag state. i.e. - once it's ashes, it's not a flag anymore so the detritus can simply be disposed of.

      I don't know where on earth you heard or saw that you should bury a flag, but that's probably the single most disrespectful suggestion for elimintating a flag that needs retired I think I've ever seen.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    5. Re:OH MY GOD by bstadil · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I somewhat agree with you. I used to have a signature that read like this:

      Politicians and diapers needs to be changed often and for the very same reason.

      Funny and often true.

      --
      Help fight continental drift.
    6. Re:OH MY GOD by finkployd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      vote the clowns out in November

      We did last election (we got rid of that Clipper Chip and DMCA happy Gore). It didn't help.

      I'm starting to think that the government is an organism unto itself, bent on amassing more and and more power over it's subjects (errrr, consumers....errrrr, citizens. Yeah that's it). At this point I don't think it matters who is in office, or in congress. Whoever gets elected will become just as corrupt as everyone else and the cycle will continue. Honestly, we have gone so beyond voting for the lesser of two evils we are now pretty much voting for the evil that most entertains us.

      Finkployd

    7. Re:OH MY GOD by Atzanteol · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually burning a worn-out flag is considered proper. At least by these folks. Not to mention many others.

      "A lesser-known fact is that the proper way to dispose of an old and tattered flag is to burn it - something many citizens do not feel comfortable doing."

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    8. Re:OH MY GOD by TheAntiCrust · · Score: 2, Funny

      IMNSFHO. Best. Acronym. Ever.

    9. Re:OH MY GOD by 2short · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Who the heck cares what anyone else thinks is the "proper" way to dispose of a worn out flag?

      If it's flying on a pole, and symbolizing lots of good things like freedom, and the people who have sacrificed to obtain and protect those things, then by all means, be respectful. Get a little choked up over it if you want, I've been known to.

      But when I pull it out of a drawer and notice moths have gotten at it, and it's all mildew stained? It's a peice of cloth. It symbolizes nothing. I'm cutting it up for rags.

      And if someone publicly burns an American flag in protest, I'd say they are making a powerful statement about what that flag has come to symbolize for them (something bad). I'd probably even like to know why. I'm certainly not going to suggest they should be prevented from making that statement, thus betraying the very thing that flag represents to me. If it is possible to desecrate the flag, surely it is done by making it a symbol of the opression of free thought and expression.

    10. Re:OH MY GOD by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You get a 99% agreement here. The only quible is that last line(not the sig, more later). It's not just dubya and co., it's all the bought and paid for in our government.
      We really need to kick most of them out of office, except they play on joe six packs apathy and ignorance. The dems and the republicans both.
      The dems try to stay in power by telling the poor they somehow magically deserve a free ride and hooking them on this free ride like a crack dealer. The republicans trade favors to big bussiness for helping with thier election and by playing on fears of 'them'.
      As to your sig. yes! I first ran into the Libertarian party in 92 when G.Bush Sr. was running against Perot and Clinton. The Libertarian party had repeatedly met the ever moving target set for participation in the debates untill they were finally told 'no we won't tell you what the new criterion are unless you meet them'. Perot never met the criterion, he was 'invited'. Most likely because he had enough $$ to make them look bad if they shut him out. I participated in the demonstration at Washintong U. in Missouri that year as much out of protest on the way they were treated as in support of thier ideals.
      Those Ideals are simple. Follow the constitution. If it's not in the constitution the feds have no bussiness, or authority, touching it. It even says so, despite someones sig badly mangling the tenth amendment(not picking on him, I get his point, but it's lessened by his scrambling). The ninth amendment also indirectly bears on this.

      <BLOCKQUOTE>
      Amendment IX

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Amendment X

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
      </BLOCQUOTE>

      Freedom has a price, that price is responsibility, a willingness to deal with uncertantity, and somtimes 'the blood of mmartyrs and tyrants'. Not random searches and siezures, not warrents based on anonymous tips, not a million other <B>bad</B> things that we currently put up with.
      Anytime a civilation needs professionals to help the common man figure out what he can and can't do in everyday life because of the complexity and volume of it's laws, it has ceased to be a civilzation and become a beuraucracy. Taxcode should fit in a pamphlet as well.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    11. Re:OH MY GOD by sfjoe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whoever, when the United States is at war, ...

      Sometimes I think I am the only person in the US who realizes this but we are NOT at war. Just because President Dumbass sez so doesn't make it so.
      Section 8 of Article 1 of the US Constitution clearly states that the US Congress has the power to declare war. Not Bush. Not Ashcroft. Not any bozo bureacrat who declares a war on drugs, poverty, illiteracy, this, that or the other thing.
      No war, no extra-constitutional powers, no sedition. Period.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    12. Re:OH MY GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative


      Just an FYI for everyone - The Sedition Act was repealed in 1921.

    13. Re:OH MY GOD by psykocrime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't think terrorists can take over a small community and hold them at will? (um, if they can take over a plane of 100+ passengers - what makes you think they cannot hold a community hostage?)

      Interestingly enough, it's already been proven that terrorists *cannot* take over a plane of 100+ passengers, when the passengers are aware that it's not in their best interests to cooperate.

      The passengers on the first two 9/11 planes did not know that the terrorists intended to fly the planes into buildings and kill everyone onboard... in the past, passengers on hijacked planes had almost always been released / rescued eventually, so everyone would have assumed it made sense to cooperate.

      On the third plane, once people found out what was going on, we see that the passengers were able to resist and thwart the terrorists plans. Yes, it cost them their lives, but we see that hijackers cannot just take over a plane and do their will, when the passengers know the score.

      In fact, I expect there will never be another attempt to hijack a plane and use it in that manner, even again... just because the would be terrorists now know that the passengers on board almost certainly will resist.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    14. Re:OH MY GOD by bagboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>> Yes, it cost them their lives, but we see that hijackers cannot just take over a plane and do their will, when the passengers know the score.

      Ah... Now you are talking along my line of thought. When a terrorist (or activist with extreme thoughts) takes over a plane, you do not (as a passenger) know what his intensions are. At this point in time, you don not care - you are simply going to take away his ability to commit whatever act he had in mind - even if you did not know he simply wanted to only have 15 minutes of "air time" on national TV to talk about alien conspiracy theories. You aren't aware he only wants that while in your seat - but in this day and age you cannot take that chance. So you fight - even to the death.

      This is the only way to deal with those whose intentions are unknown but threatening - whether on a plane or next door. Pro-active is what you stated - and that is all our government is attempting to do.

    15. Re:OH MY GOD by brsmith4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with your statement about the Bush Administration: This group has turned me from a centrist/conservative to a screaming liberal in the span of just two years (perhaps with the aid of some college philosophy courses ;), however I strongly disagree with your assessment that "Times have NOT changed... this WAS, and IS a free country"

      Over the last 50 years, the rights of the citizens in this country have slowly disappeared. From the "Red Scare" and McCarthyism to the current topic of the Patriot Act, it is undeniable that the last 50 years have shredded the constitution provided us by this nation's founders.

      A free country does not allow the government to pass laws that provide for the silent imprisonment and execution of its citizens, citizens who haven't even been convicted of a crime. A free country does not allow its private sector and capitalists to dictate domestic and foreign policy in their favor and to the disadvantage of the majority. A free country does not encourage the widening of gaps between social classes by promoting the elite and trampling and stifling the poor. A free country does not make its will dominate another sovereign country, regardless of their political system and certainly does not invade it without clear justification. A free country allows its citizens to hold its leaders accountable for their actions, actions that have caused the deaths of hundreds of your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters and countless civilians overseas.

      My friend, I have seen a free country, a country where two right-winged political parties do not dominate the political spectrum and national tickets, where peoples rights are preserved and social classes have been all but eliminated, a country where soft-money and corporate sponsorships are not permitted to "buy" elections. The U.S. is no longer a free country and it's high time something is done about it.

      Sorry for the rant, but these times have gotten me in a sort of frenzy over the current state of things. Think about it. You don't have to agree, thats freedom, but believe you me, there are many that do and many more that want to see change.

    16. Re:OH MY GOD by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yes, it is impossible.

      The sad facts: The center of the IQ field is 100. That means half the population is there, or under there. The majority of the country (not just those with 100 or under IQs) thinks god(s), or goddess(es), or some astrological constellation-wielding reincarnated future-seeing TV personality, created everything. The populace is, by and large, not very bright and/or deluded and/or other Very Bad Things. They're going to vote republican or democrat, because they simply don't know any better - and can't learn any better, either. They don't just think poorly, their thoughts consist of superstition and hokum. They swallow unmitigated tripe like "all persons are created equal" without even blinking. They absolutely wiggle with joy at the sound of the words "in god we trust" and they accept glittering generalities such as "anyone can become president" as if it were truth and not the basest of misdirection.

      So... what that means is that votes thrown to marginal parties can only send messages of dissafection - if they change an actual result, they do it by tilting the election towards one of the two viable parties and away from the other. You can't involve the masses in a democratic exercise designed to correct complex political problems - They wouldn't know a complex political problem if it rose up and bit them in the butt.

      Now, as long as that's ok with you, then your vote is being spent just as you want it to.

      But please, don't vote libertarian with the idea that you might actually get a libertarian elected to the presidency. Speaking as a fairly rabid libertarian myself, I'm telling you that's a complete waste of your vote. You'd be better off spending the time doing something else. Almost anything else.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    17. Re:OH MY GOD by nwbvt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "This man is an activist! "

      Being an activist does not give you a free pass to do whatever the hell you want. Anyone who has worked in genetics knows there are many regulations that you have to follow, for good reason. You can't just start up a biotech lab in your basement just because you have insane radical views.

      "What will be next - will I br imprisoned for life without trial in solitary for burning a flag?"

      First of all, he is not being "imprisoned for life without trial in solitary", he is being forced to stay in a hotel while his house is tested to make sure nothing dangerous is involved in his little science project. Minor difference between the two. This just proves to me that your post is a knee jerk reaction to something you have no clue about.

      Second, yes you will be jailed for burning a flag... if you do so with an illegal biotech lab in your basement!

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    18. Re:OH MY GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree with your point, but not with "Not at war, huh?"

      That simply authorizes the use of force in Iraq. It is NOT a formal declaration of war. It does reference the war powers resolution, but that isn't a formal declaration of war. Declaring war is something the United States rarely does, the last time it was done was World War II.

      Anyway, I'm posting the following just for the heck of it. The U.S. has formally declared war six times in its history:

      1. First Barbary War
      2. The War of 1812
      3. The Mexican-American War
      4. The Spanish-American War
      5. WWI
      6. WWII

      The U.S. has been involved in many other wars that had no formal declaration: Iraq (2003), the Gulf War, the Korean War, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the Civil War. It's interesting to note that more than half of all U.S. battle deaths are the result of these conflicts.

  3. wtf are you talking about by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This guy was arrested for things in his own home. The Police are treating this just like finding a huge cache of explosives or something, when in fact its what (he claims) is harmless bacteria.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:wtf are you talking about by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Funny
      when in fact its what (he claims) is harmless bacteria.
      "Is that a bioweapon?"
      "Yes ... I mean ... no."
      "Very well. Carry on."
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  4. Re:If you test the system, they'll show you it wor by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where did it mention anything about a security checkpoint? Where did it mention smuggling?

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  5. In related news... by k4_pacific · · Score: 3, Funny

    The FBI announced today that TCBY (The Country's Best Yogurt) has been shut down until further notice under section 817 of the PATRIOT Act.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
    1. Re:In related news... by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

      "The FBI announced today that TCBY (The Country's Best Yogurt) has been shut down until further notice under section 817 of the PATRIOT Act."

      So, is "contains live and active cultures" a bug or a feature?

    2. Re:In related news... by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Funny

      I just replied... but for some reason, it didn't include the full text of my reply. It should have said:

      So, is "contains live and active cultures" a bug or a feature?

      Down here, we call it Yogurt. Up there, they call them Chemical Weapons frozen for storage. Washington is a scaaaary place?

  6. I dunno by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Frankly, I really should be up to a jury to decide. I mean, He wasn't out spraying crops or anything. He was simply tooling around in his house with "harmless" bacteria and writing crazed manifestos.

    Was he "practicing" terrorism? No. But neither were the 9/11 hijackers untill that day.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:I dunno by wibs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Until you actually commit the crime, you can't be guilty of it. Not much for the jury to decide on.

      People who pose a real and direct threat should be investigated, otherwise national intelligence doesn't have anything to go on. I would say that it should stop at simply gathering intelligence because preemptive actions by law enforcement (PD, FBI, whatever) are unconstitutional, but then I remembered our foreign policy.

      Christ I can't even get through a simple slashdot post without confusing myself anymore. I'm moving to Canada.

      --
      If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
    2. Re:I dunno by vespazzari · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Was he "practicing" terrorism? No. But neither were the 9/11 hijackers untill that day.

      So now we do not need to commit the crime before we get in trouble? Is it only required that someone must have the capability to commit a crime, maybe someone with just the thought to commit crime, before that person is persecuted? Should we start calling the fbi the thought police?

      Maybe we should start calling America the home of the safe instead of home of the free?

      --
      "Alcohol, cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" -Homer Simpson
    3. Re:I dunno by flinxmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, If you're planning a crime, isn't that called "conspiracy to commit" that crime. That's potentially the case here (or what they are investigating).

      I'm not a big fan of the PA and Ashcroft, but if I have pipe, black powder, and manifestos about how certain places should be blown up....I should at *least* expect to be investigated of conspiracy/intent to commit such a crime if someone finds the stuff.

      Sure, in some way my pipe bomb building could be artistic expression...or maybe it was purely for research for my novel I'm writing...or maybe I wasn't going to actually do anything at all. But that's what the process will try to discover.

  7. Re:I'm no luddite by bofkentucky · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You do realize that every food crop/animal that man has raised since the dawn of time has been slectively bred to produce higher yields, disease resistance, and/or other physical traits (Dog and Cat breeds look nothing like their ancestors, neither does your baked potato). GE/GM crops are just allowing us to add factors that would normally take millenia to add.

    --
    09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  8. Uh-oh, hope they don't look in my fridge! by C3ntaur · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...it's probably an illegal biotech lab by their definitions too. I really need to throw out that months-old foil-wrapped leftover something-or-other in there.

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:Uh-oh, hope they don't look in my fridge! by blindbat · · Score: 5, Funny

      >I really need to throw out that months-old
      >foil-wrapped leftover

      You found my hat!

  9. Wait. Confusing. by Ieshan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Huh? I'm so confused.

    He didn't actually use the stuff on other people's crops, or do any of these things that he *could* have done. He advocated doing it.

    I mean, there are plenty of organizations in America which advocate doing ridiculous things, none of which are called in to testify on charges of actually doing the things with no concrete evidence. I mean, being a member of a white supremacist group and owning a machine gun doesn't mean you're a murdering psycho and can be thrown away for it, even I'd wager most Americans are strongly against white supremacists and a good deal of them are against high-powered weapon ownership.

    1. Re:Wait. Confusing. by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean, there are plenty of organizations in America which advocate doing ridiculous things, none of which are called in to testify on charges of actually doing the things with no concrete evidence

      OK, I'kll bite -- which orgs, exactly, publicly advocate lawbreaking in the same document with instructions on how to do it in new and clever ways without retribution?

      If The Anarchist's Cookbook has said that the reader should use the instructions contained within it to break laws and hurt people, you'd probably never have been able to read it.

      And that's a good thing.

      --
      everything in moderation
    2. Re:Wait. Confusing. by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One new power that the War on Terror is properly justifying is that encuraging somebody else to comitt a crime on your behalf needs to be a crime. The actual people who flew on the 9/11 planes are dead... however most of the people who funded and planned that operation are still alive and able to plan future attacks. We can't have that, we need to cut off the major act before it happens.

      This isn't making a crime out having thoughts or expressing ones thoughts... it's making a crime out of the proactive action of training or assiting somebody who intends on comitting a big crime. That's one concept I have no problem with having established.

    3. Re:Wait. Confusing. by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The new crime is that it's now a "conspiracy to committ terrorism" rather than only murder... a conspiracy to disrupt a economically vital system without killing anybody has to be considered as well. If somebody is killed without the intent to do so, that's manslaughter rather than murder...

  10. Where does the PATRIOT act come into this? by demaria · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read both linked articles. I've searched them for patriot as well as 817. No hits. It sounds like this guy is being charged with a law signed 15 years ago, brought to attention by a mysterious death of his wife. From the Wired writeup, I'd say he's done activities which would make me slightly suspicious. Enough to warrant an investigation at least.

    So where's the PATRIOT act charges come from? Because Slashdot isn't showing it.

    1. Re:Where does the PATRIOT act come into this? by EvanED · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    2. Re:Where does the PATRIOT act come into this? by anethema · · Score: 2, Informative

      This guy explains it well HERE

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  11. RE:Bioterrorism Charges Brought Against Professor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    With any luck they'll never see the vegetable bin in my refrigerator..

  12. From transgenic plants to bioterror? by beeplet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    CAE's latest project, included a mobile DNA extraction laboratory for testing food products for possible transgenic contamination. It was this equipment which triggered the Kafkaesque chain of events.
    FBI field and laboratory tests have shown that Kurtz's equipment was not used for any illegal purpose. In fact, it is not even _possible_ to use this equipment for the production or weaponization of dangerous germs. Furthermore, any person in the US may legally obtain and possess such equipment.


    If that's true (and the quote does come from the CAE defense fund page - obviously a biased source), it doesn't seem to me like anyone could have much of a case against him.

    I think this is just a symptom of a more general problem - most people don't understand the biology of transgenic food, and ignorance breeds fear and suspicion. There's also the conflation of ideas between transgenic plants and bioterror organisms. Yes, some of the same lab techniques of gene manipulation might be used in both, but "transgenic" seems to get confused with "harmful".

    I would be awfully surprised if this guy was growing something in his home that caused the death of his wife. And if he did, chances are it came in on whatever material he was studying - in which case that's who should be investigated.

    On the one hand, I think Mr. Kurtz probably should have set up a lab in his university rather than doing it in his home. But to lose your wife (most likely to some freak of chance - an undetected heart problem, or whatever) and your livelihood as well, is a steep price to pay.

    1. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful
      On the one hand, I think Mr. Kurtz probably should have set up a lab in his university rather than doing it in his home.

      The Kurtz's were on a budget. Also, a biology professor has a reasonable expectation of getting a lab in his university, but an art professor does not.

    2. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by dekeji · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this is just a symptom of a more general problem - most people don't understand the biology of transgenic food, and ignorance breeds fear and suspicion. There's also the conflation of ideas between transgenic plants and bioterror organisms.

      The "conflation" is justified: transgenic methods are one of the primary means of constructing bioterror organisms. Furthermore, even transgenic organisms harmless to human beings, have a significant potential for causing environmental harm (e.g., by creating herbicide-resistant weeds).

      That is one of the reasons why any kind of experimentation with transgenic organisms is regulated. In particular, it is necessary to regulate tightly what gets released into the environment. Reputable labs working on improved food crops have to comply with those regulations, and so does everybody else.

      it doesn't seem to me like anyone could have much of a case against him.

      A lot of work in molecular biology is regulated, so even if he did not intend to create a dangerous organism, he may still have run afoul of health and safety regulations.

    3. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by tgibbs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is one of the reasons why any kind of experimentation with transgenic organisms is regulated. In particular, it is necessary to regulate tightly what gets released into the environment. Reputable labs working on improved food crops have to comply with those regulations, and so does everybody else.

      Most regulations only apply to recipients of federal funds or to the food safety. While a few localities may have specific regulations, I am not aware of any general regulation of private genetic experimentation. Saying "transgenic organisms are one of the primary means of constructing bioterror organisms" is a bit like saying "chemistry is one of the primary means of creating explosives," or "machining is one of the primary means of creating automatic weapons." Most uses of these technologies are entirely benign.

      Moreover, it seems rather doubtful that transgenic technology is all that important for creation of bioweapons, anyway. Why go to the trouble of trying to create a novel pathogen when there are so many natural ones to work with? The most likely method of creating a bioterror weapon would be to grow a conventional pathogen such as anthrax in the presence of antibiotics to select resistant strains.

    4. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by whitis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      CAE's latest project, included a mobile DNA extraction laboratory for testing food products for possible transgenic contamination. It was this equipment which triggered the Kafkaesque chain of events. FBI field and laboratory tests have shown that Kurtz's equipment was not used for any illegal purpose. In fact, it is not even _possible_ to use this equipment for the production or weaponization of dangerous germs. Furthermore, any person in the US may legally obtain and possess such equipment.

      In a political climate where the one loses all right to due process at the mere accusation of involvement in terrorism and with Education Secretary Rod Paige revealing the administrations definition of "terrorism" by labeling the National Educational Association a "Terrorist Organization" for excercising their first amendment rights to criticize Bush Regime policy and a White House aide is quoted elsewhere in this discussion as saying "In this administration, you don't have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President" , there are some things about this particular case that should be regarded as red flags.

      Educating people about the presence of unsafe GM organisms in their food could be the "terrorism" in question. In this case, it is not the Bush Regime who is being criticised but their sponsors at Monsanto. According to the Organic Consumer Association the link between Monsanto and the Bush Regime is almost as bad as the Haliburton/Oil Industry Links.

      • Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Judge, "who put GW Bush in office", Former Monsano Lawyer
      • Anne Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, Former boardmember of Monsanto subsidiary
      • Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, former monsanto subsidiary board member
      • Attorney General John Ashcroft, one of the top two monsanto campaign contribution recipients in a recent election. This is the same John Ashcroft who lost to a dead man in a prior election.
      • other campaign recipients
      I would point out, also, that genetically modified foods were approved by the FDA by revolving door Monsanto employees and executives. The FDA Deputy Commisioner for Policy who supervised the creation of the FDA policy on GE foods was Michael Tayler , a lawyer who represented Monsanto before serving as Deputy Commisioner and became a Monsanto Vice President afterwards. Also, Margaret Miller , the FDA employee who approved the FDA required Monsanto report on the safety of the companies growth hormones, was the same person who had earlier written the report while working at Monsanto.

      The death of Prof. Kurtz's wife combined with the biological laboratory is legitimate reason for at least some investigation. But it also could be a convenient excuse for an administration that is motivated to harrass him. If these artists have committed a crime, it is probably bad web design (Shitwave Flush (tm) web navigation) rather than terrorism. Unless the mutant flies and roundup-sensitizing compounds prove to be not just consciousness raising experiments but actual intended eco-terrorism; but I certainly don't trust the likes of John Ashcroft to make such a determination.

    5. Re:From transgenic plants to bioterror? by tgibbs · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, this very case shows you otherwise. If it looks like it might be related to bioterrorism, the feds can and will step in.

      On the contrary, it proves my point. He is not accused under any law that specifically relates to the use or release of transgenic organisms, but under a general law that almost certainly is not applicable (since the law does not actually forbid individuals from carrying out such research in their homes).

      Because artificial pathogens can combine high mortality rate and high infectivity; natural pathogens don't generally have that combination because it is evolutionarily disadvantageous.


      Tell it to smallpox. Or bubonic plague. There are many ways in which diseases can have this property. Many natural diseases infect multiple hosts. For example, if we are not the primary reservoir of disease, then there is not evolutionary disincentive for the disease to have a high mortality rate.

      How do you think anthrax acquires antibiotics resistance? Most likely through gene transfer from some other organism.

      Give me a break. It has been known for decades that microorganisms in pure cultures acquire antibiotic resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics. The classic work of Luria and Delbruck showed that the mechanism is pre-existing mutations in the population. If you want to speed it up a bit, you can add a mutagen or irradiate the cultures. After all, how did you think the genes of different species got different to begin with? All genetic differences between species are the same kind that arise by mutation. Transgenic technology is just a convenient shortcut to achieving the same kinds of results that people have been achieving since prehistoric times by selective breeding.

  13. Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    FYI, the Patriot Act passed the Senate by something like 99-1 - John Kerry voted for it

    So Kerry's actually more at fault for the Patriot act than Ashcroft or even GWB himself (on the theory that a 99-1 or so would override any attempt at a veto, not that W would have even thought of doing that...). Ashcroft's charged with enforcing the laws, not making them.

    1. Re:Thanks for the gratuitous Ashcroft bash by wibs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right, it was hyperbole.

      And you're right too that the Sedition Act of 1918 was nasty. But they didn't have much in the way of logs, surveilance cameras, or hell, even tape recorders back then, and what little technology that was at their disposal could never have been turned into a way of keeping tabs on the entire population.

      The thing is, the Sedition Act was just a law, but that's doesn't mean it was possible to enforce. Prohibition? Last I checked I have a beer in the fridge. Laws, no matter how good or bad, have to be enforcable for them to do any good.

      What's scary about the Patriot Act is that not only is it possible to enforce, but there is ample room for the government to overstep the already extensive bounds its given itself. A government by the people for the people should not depend on secret courts granting waivers from warrants to invade privacy, without any knowledge or opportunity for defense by the citizens accused. The problem with the Patriot Act is as much its tolerance for abuse as what it actually allows.

      And one final point... if the time has come that even Bush's defenders are comparing his work to some of the worst bits of American history, isn't that kind of making an argument against him in itself?

      --
      If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
  14. Come on, the poster should RTFA by tbase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The CAE presents its performance arts pieces as satire. But the group's electronic books, with introductions featuring quotes from the likes of Malcolm X ("By any means necessary," is one of the quotes), may have the federal government suspecting that artists connected to the ensemble harbor sinister motives.

    One of the ensemble's e-books advocates releasing mutant organisms into the environment to disrupt the work of biotech firms. Another proposes secretly releasing mutated flies into restaurants.

    The CAE says this tactic, which it calls "fuzzy biological sabotage," would encourage "those who never would join a movement (to) become unknowing cohorts or willing allies" in the struggle against the biotech industry.


    Let's not mention that his "healthy" wife was found dead in their home among all the bio-lab equipment. Just another example of the Man keeping an artist down! He's an artist and an activist - so they shouldn't even investigate the bio-lab in his house, or his views on releasing mutant organisms in the wild! It's his constitutional right!

    The slant on this posting is reprehensible. If you want to stand up for this guy, I suggest you take a trip to his house, go inside and take a deep breath.

    --

    666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
    1. Re:Come on, the poster should RTFA by AEton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't claim to know anything about biology - at least, nothing more than I learned in an AP class some three years ago.

      And nobody on Slashdot knows from these brief summaries the full story behind the case. For instance, when the police say they think bacteria have nothing to do with the death, are they only saying that because they're legally compelled not to accuse someone? Or do they really think that bioterror is an essentially implausible option and this fellow is just an activist a little too extreme to let slide? (His emotional state re: having a wife suddenly die is, apparently, not terribly important especially if he might have done it.)

      Still, from the summaries alone - and this is a big caveat - the bioterror thing strikes me as a very familiar kind of alarmist angle used and supported by people that don't know any better. It's the kind of attitude that kept Kevin Mitnick (according to John Markoff of the New York Times an FBI Most Wanted List star, although he can't prove it) in solitary confinement for some eight months. Otherwise, a judge was convinced, he might start global thermonuclear war by whistling at NORAD through a payphone.

      In the war against terrorism (can you wage war on a method?), letting our own ignorance make us deathly afraid of one another is tantamount to conceding defeat.

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
  15. Re:Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by ignatus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    dude, the only thing they do is provide a test, so people can check if their food contains genetically modified food. That's not exactly vandalism or destruction of somedy else's property. You can't do any harm with the equipment they use.

    --
    - Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
  16. Re:I'm no luddite by shepd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >But I think creating genetically-modified foods in the first place are terrorist activites!

    "We're 6.6 billion people now. We can only feed 4 billion; I don't see 2 billion volunteers to disappear."

    -- Norman Borlaug on Penn and Teller's Bullshit! - "Eat This!", speaking on the effects of removing modern farming techniques and genetic engineering from the food supply.

    Sorry. I'm gonna have to take the word of a man who is estimated to have saved 1 billion lives and has a nobel peace prize over yours. Hope you understand. Don't take it personally.

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  17. Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by C-Diddy · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    "Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
    1. Re:Dear John Ashcroft and PATRIOT Act Haters by EvanED · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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.

  18. Get used to it... by psykocrime · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Shit like this is only going to continue to happen more and more often...

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again(I wasn't first to say this, mind you)...

    if you want an unlimited source of free energy, just attach a turbine to George Orwell's body

    Orwell's vision is coming true, little by little by little... and if the American people don't stand up and do something about it, pretty soon it will be too late (if it's not already).

    There's an election coming up folks... think long and hard about whether the people you're voting for are FOR or AGAINST this kind of shit. My suspicion is that any major party candidate is FOR this shit, personally.

    --
    // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    1. Re:Get used to it... by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Orwell's vision is coming true, little by little by little...

      George Orwell's vision had come true, in the big noisy clunky physical world, before he even wrote the book '1984.'

      It was about Stalinism. I know that most of us had 'new left' influenced teachers in High School, where we were forced to study '1984,' and thus nobody mentioned the 'dirty russkies' (without heavy footnotes to 'McCarthyism, etc'), but the truth stands. Orwell was a disgruntled 'fellow traveller' of the Communists, and the world he described in '1984' was already in existence when he wrote the book.

      It's almost a 'Soylent Green Is People' thing to have to bring stuff like this up, because everybody is so afraid to acknowlege what went on in Russia.

      --
      resigned
  19. Excerpt of Text from Cookbook by Ieshan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I typed "Anarchist's Cookbook" in Google.

    I clicked a chapter. This is what I found:


    Unstable Explosives by the Jolly Roger

    Mix solid Nitric Iodine with househould ammonia. Wait overnight and then pour off the liquid. You will be left with a muddy substance. Let this dry till it hardens. Now throw it at something!!!!


    Read the last sentence. What was your point, exactly?

    1. Re:Excerpt of Text from Cookbook by Soporific · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't that Nitrogen Triodide (sp?). I remember making something like that and as soon as it dried it exploded. Sound waves would set it off if I remember correctly and this is the same substance. A little went a long way too.

      ~S

  20. Re:Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by rossifer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Deconstructing and disrupting the growth of genetically modified foods" might be done as a piece of performance art, but it's still vandalism and destuction of somebody else's property.

    I have two problems with your statement.

    First, you stated your opinion as a fact. You have assumed as facts several premises that are very much in debate. Many (including myself) will argue that much art is also political statement and that the artist being discussed here takes a slightly different view on the subject of what can be property and what should be done with genetic engineering. As such, you might sound more credible if you actually responded to the issues being raised rather than just bleating "terrorist!"

    Second, they didn't actually do any of the things you're saying they did, they described some ideas on how to do those things. You're allowed to write a story about robbing a bank and make lots of money, but if you actually rob a bank, you go to federal prison. See the difference? It's subtle, but it's there.

    They're still practicing terrorism in that releasing something genetically modified into the environment is likely to cause a scare even if it's found to be harmless later.

    RTFA. They haven't done any genetic modifications, nor have they released anything genetically modified into the environment. The equipment that the accused had in his home is for making gels: visualizations of genetic sequences. The most he could do in the way of genetic modification with the equipment he had was to create the equivalent of a bacterial breed by selecting bacterial populations for various conditions.

    And, in a worst case, these guys could botch it all up and cause the kind of environmental harm that they're so scared Monsanto will cause.

    Get your facts straight, you also have all of the equipment to do exactly the same thing in your home right now. The only thing you can't do that he could with his fancy gear is see what the bacterial genes look like in the mutant strain in the back corner of the fridge.

    At least Monsanto does its best to follow the laws... these people seem to have no respect for the law at all.

    Monsanto will definitely follow the laws that benefit its bottom line. To assume that Monsanto is therefore completely lawful is an entirely different set of assumptions. I have found that only rarely do companies do what is moral (or legal) when the immoral and illegal are much more profitable. While I have no evidence that that Monsanto learned at the Enron school of business, I'll reserve judgement about whether it "does its best to follow the laws." until I know for certain.

    Regards,
    Ross

  21. How so??? by DrugCheese · · Score: 2, Funny

    Our justice department, using its overwhelming powers granted in the aptly named PATRIOT ACT, cannot make mistakes!! If the government says this man is a terrorist, then he is!

    Question them, you're on the list next...

    Love thy country, fear they government.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
  22. Re:No, it's more like... by iabervon · · Score: 2, Funny

    And, in this case, he seems to be confused about which one contains E. coli...

  23. Re:I'm no luddite by Skjellifetti · · Score: 3, Insightful

    GE/GM crops are just allowing us to add factors that would normally take millenia to add.

    And in a decade or so could possibly wreck the kind of ecological destruction that would normally take millenia as well. Sticking genes from one species into another is not at all the same thing as selectively breeding a single species for desirable traits.

  24. corpse in the kitchen by dekeji · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A corpse in the kitchen with an unknown cause of death and a stack of bacterial cultures ought to be cause for concern for the police and ought to prompt a police investigation. Furthermore, determining whether some genetically engineered bacteria are dangerous or not is far from trivial, so it's not like one can just look at the situation and determine that it is harmless. So, no, I don't think police overreacted in this case. Take away the corpse, and maybe one could say that they overreacted. Even then, dangerous and harmless kinds of experiments are difficult to tell apart, and the question of why this work isn't happening in a lab, with proper documentation and notification, is still valid.

  25. More crazies. by digitaltraveller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Steven Kurtz sounds like a bit of a nutjob to me. Unless his 'proposal for the release of mutant flies in restaurants' is Johnathan Swift style satire.

    Most biotech scientists would support labelling of GM foods. Only the Monsato's of the world oppose this. It's a reasonable, conservative viewpoint. When that doesn't occur, the crazies come out and want to release mutant flies, or do other insane things.

    People with these type of radical viewpoints will continue to grow in the U.S., as the government becomes more disconnected from the people.

    (eg. Because of congressional gerrymandering something like 80% of U.S. house representatives are in safe districts, and have almost no risk of party loss in an election.)

    The consequence of this is that these politicians have less incentive to worry about the concerns of their electorate. Enter the lobbyists to fill this time on their hands.

    1. Re:More crazies. by beeplet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Steven Kurtz sounds like a bit of a nutjob to me. Unless his 'proposal for the release of mutant flies in restaurants' is Johnathan Swift style satire.

      Most biotech scientists would support labelling of GM foods. Only the Monsato's of the world oppose this. It's a reasonable, conservative viewpoint.


      Ironically it's because of fanatics like Kurtz that the GM companies oppose labelling. People who are set on convincing the world that all GM food is harmful force the companies into the position of feeling they have something to hide.

      It's too bad that the people holding the "reasonable, conservative viewpoint" don't usually feel motivated to do crazy things to get that message heard. We need education - not performance art with mutant flies...

  26. Hypocrisy? by PatHMV · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it that genetic manipulation to make more and better food is bad, but genetic manipulation (with intentional release into the wild) to protest something is good? Why is it that when Monsanto says they've tested the GM crops to be safe, they are disbelieved on general principles, but when some art professors say THEIR GM bacteria are safe, they must know absolutely what they are talking about?

  27. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by randyest · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do you need a license to have sex too?

    If you have AIDS and know it, and don't tell your partner, you can't even (legally) have sex -- license or not. And that's the kind of case we're talking about.

    If you're breeding Anthrax in your basement (not saying he was -- maybe his stuff was harmless, and maybe it would have remained so -- or not) I want you stopped.

    Sorry, your right to pursue your interest in your home stops when that interest might get out of control and kill everyone in the neighborhood.

    --
    everything in moderation
  28. Scariest. Comment. Ever. by feronti · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't believe I just read that. Maybe this country is going down the tubes after all. I'm very frightened for the future of freedom if political activism and terrorism are now one and the same.

  29. Re:Some clarification by randyest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thanks for the clarification. I hope you can also help clarify how E. coli, Serratia and Bacillus globigii are "mainly related to some equipment used to extract dna."

    Oh, and while you're at it, please reconcile:

    You can't do anything harmfull with [E. coli, Serratia and Bacillus globigii]

    . . . with:

    Even harmless bacteria can become harmful under certain, but extremely rare, circumstances, said Richard Roberts, a leading DNA researcher.

    --
    everything in moderation
  30. This is actually valid. by nberardi · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:This is actually valid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have personally been approached by the feds demanding all records we have on certain students at the university I work for. In the past the standard response was to reply with "sure thing, as soon as we see a warrant for that data". Under the Patriot Act (and don't kid yourself into thinking parts of it are not classified) if I tried that now I personally would be charged with obstruction of justice. I am literally not allowed to request a warrant if the Patriot Act is brought up. Nor am I allowed to tell anyone that the request happened. This is real "secret police" kinda stuff people.

      Anonymous Coward (accept no substitutes)

  31. In related news... by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Funny

    Terrorism charges were brought against all professors that used surprise exams against students.

  32. Re:sheesh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So what's going to happen if my girlfriend electrocutes herself with her hair dryer, and the medics find my basement full of oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, and RF/microwave components?

    Same idea. Petri dishes and bacteria samples -- even dangerous ones -- are not illegal to own. At least, they weren't, before Ashcroft and his boss came to town.

    Your hobby, unless it's birdwatching, may be next.

  33. That's what a grand jury is for by Kohath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They investigate. They indict or not after their investigation.

    This is a perfect case for a grand jury. There was a lot of stuff going on. Some of it seems criminal at first, but may not be.

    The grand jury is there to decide what to do.

    How should they decide whether to indict? Coin flip? Slashdot poll?

    Also: The FBI is involved because there's an investigation to determine whether a Federal law has been broken. I is for Investigation. F is for Federal.

    1. Re:That's what a grand jury is for by AoT · · Score: 2, Funny

      And the B is for Bureau, as in bureacracy, and that is the real reason they are involved.

  34. Re:I'm no luddite by unitron · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "GE/GM crops are just allowing us to add factors that would normally take millenia to add."

    Aren't GE/GM crops usually engineered not to produce seeds so that if you want to grow more next season you have to go back to Monsanto or whoever and buy more seeds or seedlings? Isn't this the worry about these "Frankenplants", that they'll crossbreed with regular plants on the next farm over and render them sterile as well, thus forcing all the farmers to become Mega-Ag-Corp. customers whether they want to be or not?

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  35. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by dead+sun · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Oh dear god, not E. coli! Heavens forbid that somebody should have a bacteria that can be found in every single functioning stomach on the damn planet. Or Serratia, heavens, that isn't found in the soil or in damp areas. It was certainly never used in public schools in experimentation. And Bacillus globigii, I feel faint. Another soil bateria that isn't considered harmful unless you're a chemo patient in terrible shape that's pretty much hospital bound (which makes any bacteria potentially harmful).

    What's next, we shut down any lab that deals with the all deadly "microbes" of doom that aren't officially run by the government? Schools will have their doors beaten down and all the petri dishes will be rounded up and taken away? What the hell? Maybe they could round up all the dirt nearby and make sure to take the terrifying E. coli out of people's guts.

    And what's so terrifying about proposals to release mutant flies or demonstration that GM crops have vulnerabilities? Should we silence anybody that has the gall to show us that our tampering with food has the possibility to cause problems? Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with GM foods boosting yield and such, but it'd be a bit like somebody publishing a proof of concept that the internet can be destroyed if somebody had the resources to do so. We don't want potential hazards silenced so we can live in lala land and seal our own fates, do we?

    I agree that there should be a list of substances which shouldn't be made, and if the gov't finds somebody doing so then prosecute away. I don't think we should really worry too hard about a few nonpathogenic microbes though. They certainly shouldn't be wasting my tax money on charges of having everyday bacteria. Sure, under extremely rare and odd circumstances they might become hostile, but since these bacteria are everywhere anyway that isn't really the point, is it?

    --
    If not now, when?
  36. Artist == Criminal? by handy_vandal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apparently John Ashcroft can't tell a weapons lab from an art installation.

    Of course he can tell the difference --

    * An artist is a dangerous subversive, who must be arrested to stop the spread of ideas.

    * A bio-weapons specialist is a valuable national resource, who must be recruited to work for Homeland Security.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  37. Grand Juries by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Informative

    The fact that he's being questioned by a grand jury is not alarming... if he's charged then we're all going to deserve to see more proof as to why, but so far I see nothing wrong with trying to find out if there's a link to the suspect materials that we just haven't discovered yet.

    Getting questioned by a grand jury is pretty alarming because it means someone is seeking an indictment against you for a crime. Prosecutors get indictments at a high rate because the defendant does not have a chance to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses. It's all the prosecutor's show at that point.

    So yeah, getting indicted for a crime such as murder is a bad thing. You get arrested and as such. It's more than the police or DA asking you questions or holding you as a witness.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  38. Re:Eh? I'm confused! by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All those lines are already drawn and the effects are mostly for the common good. Misuse (or obviously intending to misuse) explosive gas or propane and you get in trouble. If you let your toilet brew feces until it creates a public health hazard, someone will come make you clean it up, or haul you off to the asylum and clean it up for you.

    None of these things are unreasonable. If you run a bio-tech lab, you should be forced to adhere to public safety precautionary standards and regulations.

    --
    everything in moderation
  39. Re:The legacy of the Bush Administration by wibs · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
  40. Another stunning display of ignorance by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is up there with FBI's alert about people with maps and or almanacs.
    And the FBIs' investigation of a book that contained 100yr old smallpox scabs and launched an investigation as to whether or not it was bioterrorism.

    The fact is a woman died and the fact is the womans death was ruled "due to natural causes". So pardon me, but I do not see how a jury grand or not could be a better judge than a doctor trained to perform an autopsy and atoxicilogy lab. Perhaps if they ordered a few additional autopsies and toxicology tests... but a grand jury should not be concerned with a procedure so mundane as to have already been done by the police department.

    That and the additional fact that no cultures have been found at said lab that pose any threat.

    Overall, this does not add up.
    It seems once again those who have brains and initiative should bee feared. Why doesn't Ashcroft just come out and say it? "All people with higher education than a highschool degree are a potential threat and should be watched closely".

    Next thing you know the DoJ will be demanding the banning of home chemistry sets currently available at Toys 'R' Us and Walmart due to a "A very present and significant threat by educated youngsters against the free people of the world."

  41. Insanity by ikekrull · · Score: 3, Insightful


    I mean really, people have been working microbes and selectively breeding organisms for thousands of years.

    Modern industrial processes and practices have essentially supressed the knowledge in the general population of how our foodstuffs, beverages, drugs and other products are produced, and attempt to disguise as completely as possible the materials, and biological processes that are used in their production.

    As a result, when sucking back a 6-pack of beer we don't think about the bacteria and biological reactions necessary to make it.

    We don't think, when eating cheese, that maybe we're exposing ourselves to potentially fatal biological agents.

    When you light up a cigarette, you don't really think about the centuries of genetic engineering that has resulted in the smooth taste of your laramie.

    Bacteria is bad because some bacteria will kill us? Is this really the US government's message?

    That learning for yourself and practicing the same techniques that are some of the foundations of modern civilisation is somehow wrong?

    If its not in a can or a plastic package with pretty branding, it can't be right?

    If its not part of a commercial process, it should be banned?

    This is a massive over-reaction by the government - A corporation doing exactly the same thing is not in breach of the law.

    When Jesus Christ turned water into wine, was he a frickin bio-terrorist?

    --
    I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
  42. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The agents asked the gallery director whether she believed Steven Kurtz holds anti-American sentiments

    *cough* McCarthyism *cough*...

  43. Re:I'm no luddite by bofkentucky · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tell that to the guy who bred the first mule.

    When you talk about ecological destruction, are you talking about the overpopulation "problem" that these technologies will create or the unfounded fears of watermellonpeace who are actually so anti-business that they'll delibertly mislead consumers or destroy crops. Study the introduction of the potato in the old world for some insight on how this planet's population ceiling has been raised over the past 10,000 years of agriculture and animal husbandry. As for convicing the environmentalists, I'm waiting for them to wrap their minds around the basics of GE/GM technologies, as the bulk of their arguments have been based on hatred for profit making business.

    --
    09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  44. Re:I'm no luddite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, well, some of the things they've been putting into plants aren't even plant genes.

    For example, in plant life there exists tons of herbicides and insecticides, developed to help the plant survive. Nicotine, and caffiene, for example.

    But, they're going after fungus, and getting the BT toxin gene, putting it into corn and tobacco and the other cash crops. This is something that would quite likely never be developed in these species. Even after millions of years of cross breeding. Yeah, BT is killer stuff to bugs. In larger doses, it's not good for humans (or fungus for that matter).. Who knows what the long range impacts are from the large scale introduction of another toxin into our food chain.

  45. Rule of the law... by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 3, Informative

    Bacteria are not a threat to politicians. A Kurtz's radicalism is.

    What makes referenced Patriot Act section extremely practical for political reuse is simple fact, that any chemical or biological substance could be considered as toxic, either in certain condition or in certain quantity.

    Expired yoghurt? Molded bread? Can of meat forgotten on sunlight? Either of that is highly biologically dangerous material...

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  46. If I'm ill, and sneeze in public by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Am I a bioterrorist? I will have collected a dangerous biological material, harvested it in my body, and exposed the public to the substance knowing its potential to cause harm.

  47. Mmmmmmm... yogurt by thehomeland · · Score: 2, Funny

    Guess that means the yogurt industry is screwed.

  48. think about the implications, please. by twitter · · Score: 2, Informative
    He's an artist and an activist - so they shouldn't even investigate the bio-lab in his house, or his views on releasing mutant organisms in the wild!

    Nice straw man, tbase. I've yet to see anyone but you say such a thing.

    How about remembering that the good professor is innocent until proven guilty? I'd like to see real planning and materials pinned to the artist himself. What's being presented is petri dishes full of mold and literature, perhaps fantasy, from an organization the professor is a member of. It's all flimsy stuff that exposes problems with the Patriot Act.

    Quoting Malcom X does not make you a terrorist any more than reprinting, "Give me liberty or give me death." does. Actions are what laws forbid, not thoughts.

    A lab in your living room does not make you a terrorist either, but it looks like that will now get you into trouble with the Patriot act. While it seems clear that the "biological agents" found in the apartment were not harmful and not the cause of Hope's death, the lab itself is being treated as a weapon.

    Where do you draw the line? If you can't breed bugs for art, what can you breed them for? Do you want to have to convince Big Brother you are politically correct when you want to grow brewer's yeast?

    If you really want to be convinced of how harmless this group is, go visit their website yourself. The thing is a joke. The only thing that's disgusting is how far some prosecutor's clerk had to dig to find anything that looks threatening.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  49. Wow... by rayvd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you combine the death of his wife, the goals (satirical or not) of the organization this guy is a part of, and the fact that he does all this stuff from a lab in a residential area, it seems pretty clear to me that at least *investigating* would be an extremely appropriate thing to do. It appears that's what happened and the fact that they are leveling charges makes me think something was discovered.

    Throwing up a lot of quotes of disbelief by various people associated with the projects does little to discount that the whole situation surrounding this guy is more than a bit strange.

    This is far from an invasion of personal rights as some of you knee-jerk types would like to paint it...

  50. Re:I'm no luddite by AoT · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except their GMO plants ARE capable of cross pollination.

    I'm a little lazy right now but here is an article/paper about managing cross pollination between GMO and non-GMO plants. I can only assume that if management of cross pollination is required then it must be possible.

    What normally would end up happening with cross pollination is that only some of the genes are in the new generation so the terminator gene is not in the new plant. I you look up some of monsanto's actions in canada and mexico against farmers whose fields have been contaminated by GMO crops I think you migh come away with a different view on things.

    Last but not least, Monsanto has a patent(copyright?) on all the gene sequences that they insert into their GMO. This means that if your crops get cross contaminated you owe them money. And trust me they'll come to collect.

  51. Oh FUCK ME. I'm just screwed, aren't I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    if I have pipe, black powder, and manifestos about how certain places should be blown up....
    Pipe.

    The refrigerator water line broke a valve. I just replaced a bad faucet in the kitchen. My sewer line sprung a leak last month. The freshwater line is leaking this month. I've got spare plumbing parts lying all over the house, just trying to keep up with it all.

    Black Powder.

    So I'm into target shooting. Hey, geeks with guns, and all that... Ammo is expensive. Reloading cuts my costs in half. I've got top of the line ammo reloading gear. Liters of black powder. Hell, I've got boxes of fulminate based primers. (They come in lots of 1000 units.)

    manifestos

    After the Oklahoma City Bombing back in '95, I began to doubt our various news sources' accuracy/truthfulness. They didn't seem to be sticking too closely to the facts. So I bought some books, old army manuals really, on how to blow shit up. Improvised explosives, and how to use them. Sifted through the news reports for facts that were there. Ignored the obvious rants. And drew my own conclusions.

    (FYI: I concluded the second seismic disturbance occurred from lateral displacement of a supporting column in the structure. When it broke, the energy released would have been like a second bomb going off. Neatly accounting for the asymmetrical damage. Thank god Timothy McVeigh was a such an incompetent bomber. Oh, and the feds were almost certainly responsible for burning those Davidians alive. The wind patterns. The holes punched by their tear-gas tank created a chimney effect. The pattern to the holes appears deliberate.)

    about how certain places should be blown up.

    I've been a long-time critic of airport security. It's just nuts. (I can't take a pair of nail clippers on. What's the rational there? If you don't let me hijack the plane, I'll trim my toenails? Or forcing women to drink their own breast milk?)

    On the other hand, even with all the extra post-911 security, its still damn trivial to slip guns/knives/bombs through. Obvious security lapses that just aren't being patched.

    I'd like to get them to change. Preferably without getting myself arrested in the process...

    I'm just doomed, aren't I? But imagine if they raided Sam Barros' place!

    P.S. As long as we're playing gestapo here, I hope you won't be put out about coming down to the station for some hard questioning, not to mention paying for a lawyer, for conspiracy to rape that girl out in Timbuktu. After all, you've got the equipment! We need to investigate...

    ...Is this really anonymous? If you don't hear back from me, its not...

  52. Re:Not likely Al Queda, but still terrorists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it is silly to imagine he hasn't done any genetic modification. Infact every student who takes AP Biology in high school today does genetic modification of E. Coli to be resistant to a certain antibiotic, to express green fluorescent protein, or to express luciferase from fireflies to glow.

    The only equipment needed for genetic transformation of "competent" strains of E. Coli is a hot water bath. They suck bacterial plasmids right into the cells and their genome.

    You can go to a web site, enter in a gene nucleotide sequence, and get a vial of bacterial plasmid with your custome gene in a few days for as little as $500.

    I'm not saying this guy is dangerous, there really isn't evidence that people can cook up anything worse in their kitchens using genetic modification than they could not using genetic modigication, but with a bit of soil and an incubator.

  53. Re:Reality check time by jmorris42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > What pisses me the fuck off here, what really drives the rage with
    > which I've been posting lately, is that you folks have co-opted a
    > political movement and philosophy that was once associated with
    > patience, humility, and honor, constructed a bizarre mythology of code
    > words in which anyone who disagrees with you is a Stalinist, that has
    > wrapped a lust for power and wealth in the American flag.

    Sigh. Guess you don't get out much.... or even watch TV. Socialists have a long history of wearing out one label and 'reinventing' themselves under a new one. Back around the turn of the 20'th Century 'Socialist' was a perfectly respectable political label. But as it actually went into practice and rapidly descended into the horrors of Stalinism in Russia and then National Socialism in Germany it fell out of favor for reasons which should be obvious to all. (If it isn't obvious to you, get off slashdot and pick up a history book!)

    Thus the modern 'Liberal' was born. Swiping the name made respectable by the Classical Liberals of the 18 and 19th Century was a genius stroke of marketing. But by the 1970s and 1980s it had become obvious that people had caught on to the fact that the modern "Liberals" where the same old income redistributionists and group rights race baiters under a new name and if an opponent hurled the label "Liberal" and made it stick a pol was toast.

    The Democratic party didn't start to face that reality for another decade when the "New Democrats" were born and Bill Clinton ascended to the White House. Then promptly set out to govern as caricitures of Liberalism, leading the voters to respond by creating Speaker Gingrich and Pres. Clinton stuffing a sock in Hillary's mouth and tacking towards the center a bit. But the "New Democrats" had an element in their movement who actually wanted to change the soap, not just design a new box with "New & Improved" on the label.

    We now know which side won that battle for the Democratic Party. So now we have the Howard "I have a scream" Dean phenom and the "Progressive" movement, which is the same Socalists/Liberal ideas fired by anger now that the Democrats are nominally out of power for the first time in recent memory. Disagree with my assessment? Well then name some major policy differences between the three labels?

    I'm not yanking code words out of my ass and seeing Commies under every rug, I'm reading their fucking webpages you silly twit. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read a few of the fringe nutjob's webpages to confirm for yourself that 'critical theory' prattle almost always appears on pages by obvious crackpot Marxists. After all, they needed a new name for Marxism since even the Russians don't want anything to do with it anymore.

    Which brings us to this specific asshat. He is making very public statements threatening to release chemicals to DESTROY CROPS! Should we really wait until he actually does it? Or knowing the gutless nature of most academic green terrorists, gets one of his young and stupid students to do it for him.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  54. Can we drop the tinfoil hat stuff? by jmorris42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    > Under the Patriot Act (and don't kid yourself into thinking parts of it
    > are not classified) if I tried that now I personally would be charged
    > with obstruction of justice.

    I call bullshit. There are no 'secret' sections of the PATRIOT act. We can;t be expected to obey laws we can't possibly know anything about. I work in a public library and went through all this tinfoil hat stuff already when all the Nadorites went into a frenzy. (Think I'm being extreme? Well I was AT the Texas Library Assoc Convention a few months ago and watched Mr. Nader get more standing ovations than Kerry will likely get at the Democratic Convention next month.)

    > I am literally not allowed to request a warrant if the Patriot Act is
    > brought up.

    Wrong. Our orders are that if a Fed asks for ANYTHING we respond that we aren't authorized to do ANYTHING and to pick up the phone for our boss. She will get in touch with the city attorney (our legal representation of record) and they will handle it from there. But while that happens we should begin collecting the information, but stall on any turnover until we hear from her.

    And yes they do nead a warrant to actually take anything, but it is generally considered that a Fed on site will have little problem with that detail and to assume they either already have one or soon will so go ahead and start collecting the requested info. No sense being a total asshole about it.

    > Nor am I allowed to tell anyone that the request happened.

    Yes, this part IS true. Not sure how I personally come down on this one, but it does make a certain sense. But the more I ponder it the potential for misuse is just fscking huge so I guess I'd prefer to see that section of PATRIOT sunset.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  55. Take action.... by abram10 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    JUST SO YOU KNOW: I'M JOKING.... I DON'T REALLY WANT THE FOLLOWING TO HAPPEN....

    Do you know what this means?! Ban chemistry and biology from our schools! Ban physics and math! Ban art! Leave only English and American History. There's no harm in speaking English, and American History can instill patriotism in young Americans!

    Oh, yeah: ban PE too; we don't want strong terrorists! ;-)

  56. Re:Oh FUCK ME. I'm just screwed, aren't I? by phoenix321 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mod up please.

    Try posting your comment not anon and I'd have added you to my friends list for this classic civil liberty embracing post. Thank you anyway. ;)

    If you are afraid of what you say and hide your name deliberately "then the _censors_ will have already won" ;) - oppression only works if all people have the *impression* that public dissent is considered insane from a "majority" and may even be outright dangerous.

    If you can't criticize "the ruling party" without fearing crippling ridicule from others (even if it's the "Freepers" et al.) or incarceration by the authorities, it's only a matter of time before real dictatorship is established. Just because it shows no swastika it can be fascism anyway.

    And in commemoration of "D-Day" tomorrow, I need to say as a German: thank you for the liberation *but* please make sure your nation does never transform into a fascism. The media cartels and its almost obvious manipulations are making me nervous and the military-industrial complex is already elected vice-president. Please, Americans, learn from German history on what NOT to do and when NOT to remain silent. If the totalitarian trend apparent in all branches of the US government continues I think it could soon be worse than we realize yet.

  57. Not a free country - a costly one by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A free country does not allow its private sector and capitalists to dictate domestic and foreign policy in their favor and to the disadvantage of the majority
    The US lobbying system has confused me, paticularly since I live in a part of the world where members of a previous goverment were jailed for taking bribes. How is lobbying prevented from turning into outright bribery, paticularly in the defence sector where almost everything is kept secret? This affects everyone, my own country has made some rather stupid purchases on the request members of the US government (eg. obsolete torpedos we need to modify our submarines to use - when the supply runs out we'll have to modify them back; forty year old helicopters; tanks that do not fit any likely combat role of our military, which cost more, have a catastophicly short range and generally are worse in all areas than the light long range tanks they are replacing).

    The state I live in had a catch all piece of legislation known as the "drugs misuse act", which gave "Patriot" style powers. No warrents, prisoners could be held for some time without charge etc - it was abused a great deal by members of the local police force until it was repealed, such a thing will be abused by some even if it is set up with the best intentions. Removing the checks and balances unleases all kinds of actions. Alarm bells should have run the second it was called the "patriot" act - vote against something with a name like that and you'll look bad, no matter what the contents of the bill are, since you would obviously not be a patriot.

    As for the bioweapon shadow jumping, what really happened with the anthax? There's been a lot of sideshows and distractions since then.

  58. The guy lost his wife goldarnit ! by geoswan · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If there is no true crime, he'll be fine...

    I've read about fifty comments here, and no one has expressed any sympathy for the guy who has just lost his wife. She was an artist herself, and they worked together on their projects. I am going to assume he loved her.

    Put yourself in his shoes. You lose your wife and you get your life turned upside down, at the same time, by the Justice department?

    This reminds me of that Oregon lawyer. He had defended someone suspected of terrorist ties. He had converted to Islam. The FBI said there was a match between him and a fingerprint found at the Madrid bombing. But they were wildly wrong. They were told they were wrong.

    Carlos Corrales, a commissioner of the Spanish National Police's science division, said he was also struck by the F.B.I.'s intense focus on Mr. Mayfield. "It seemed as though they had something against him," Mr. Corrales said, "and they wanted to involve us."
    What is the point of patting yourself on the back for having a "free Country" if you let paranoia around security make you act like a Police State?
  59. Re:What is a Grand Jury? by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Informative

    A grand jury is a replacement for a preliminary hearing, done in secret so that the evidence doesn't have to be published or given to the defense at this stage. It's overseen by a judge to keep the prosecutor in line, but it really is the prosecutor's show. There's no defense lawyer to challenge the witnesses, but the jury members are usually allowed to directly question the witnesses.

    The burden at such a proceedure is trivial, because all a grand jury can do is return an indictment. The common joke that a procecutor can talk a grand jury into indicting a ham sandwich is more or less correct, it's a real slap in the face for a grand jury to respond that they were not convinced the burden to get an indictment was met.

    This process is done to prevent really pointless trials from even getting started.

  60. Re:The legacy of the Bush Administration by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mr Goore was on a campain stop when he made that speech. Don't believe for a minute it was develped by him at all. There is a movment on the "left" to try and discedit bush by any means necessary, including lying cheating and stealing. The only thing huffy and upset was Gore thinking "it's payback for winning against me" .. nothing more.