Proposed Legislation Is Mooninite Fallout

theantipop writes "Ars Technica has a story about the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act, a bill introduced recently by the Senate. The bill aims to 'amend the federal criminal code to include a number of new clauses meant to up the ante on wasting government resources. The amendments include extensions to the prohibitions on the spread of false information and mailing threats, increases to maximum prison terms, and allowances for civil suits so that local and federal governments can attempt to recoup expenses related to an incident.' This is undoubtedly a reaction to the Great Mooninite Scare of 2007."

Comments

...and in related news,

[Srass]

Congress has just passed a bill making it illegal to make government officials look like idiots. Government officials were unavailable for comment, having been immediately arrested upon passage of the bill. This has started talk of a bill to make "making stupid things illegal" illegal, but it is unknown whether anyone is now left to vote on the bill, or, possibly more to the point, who will argue incessantly over whether the bill is self-contradictory or not.

Re:...and in related news,

[TheHornedOne]

Mr. Yossarian was unavailable for comment.

Watch out for DHMO

[Kelson]

Hmm, "prohibitions on the spread of false information...."

Does that mean that if another city starts considering legislation to ban dihydrogen monoxide (like Aliso Viejo, California did in 2004), that the government could seek damages from the mainainers of DHMO.org?

Re:Watch out for DHMO

[72beetle]

prohibitions on the spread of false information....

Like the existence of WMD's?

Re:Watch out for DHMO

[RingDev]

"prohibitions on the spread of false information...."

I smell a veto coming!

-Rick

Re:Watch out for DHMO

[einhverfr]

No. In the case of WMD's in Iraq, spreading false information was the government's job. THey just don't want any competition.

Re:Watch out for DHMO

[dgatwood]

Yup. Government officials are only allowed to make themselves look like complete morons. God forbid anyone else should be allowed to do so.

Frankly, I think this bill gets dangerously close to thought crime. Making a threat is already illegal. Doing something that a f*ckcing moron thinks is a threat should not be. If you are too mind bogglingly stupid to look at the mooninite thing and realize that it is probably not a bomb, you not only do not deserve to be in any position of authority, but also probably do not even deserve the life support that they must be using to keep your body alive in the absence of a central nervous system (both parts).

The best one was Boston police blowing up a traffic counter. Seriously, there is one very massive sucking sound caused by the vacuum between the ears of the people who are reacting to these "credible threats".

Here's a counterproposal. Make it a crime punishable by termination and fines for any person in charge of any government entity to waste taxpayer resources. THAT would be a useful law. It would make it possible to can people in civil service for gross ineptitude, a condition which unfortunately seems all too prevalent in those circles, and for which which no viable solution currently exists due to fundamental brokenness in government hiring practices.

We can start by arresting Congress plus the entire Executive Branch and starting over from scratch.

Re:Watch out for DHMO

[ringm000]

False information? It looks like all the information on DHMO.org is true.

Re:Watch out for DHMO

[eln]

Making the government look like a bunch of idiots is my God-given right as an American. If people can't let off steam by making fun of the government, they might actually get angry enough to do something more serious to the government.

Re:Watch out for DHMO

[Rei]

Nonsense! The war in Iraq was launched to establish freedom for the Iraqis, not to find weapons of mass destruction, which obviously weren't there. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was threatening America with them, and wouldn't let the inspectors in. Iraq destroyed all of the weapons before the war, after shipping them to Syria and Iran, to make us look bad. We then found the weapons when we invaded.

At least, that's what I'm told by the good people at Fox News. By the way -- why do you hate America?

Re:Watch out for DHMO

[Mistlefoot]

And Canada has just been sent a bill.....to pay for the money spent investigating our "poppy" quarters after US agents thought they were being 'bugged' due to the red embedded on the coins.

How could we be so careless.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20070507.wspycoins0507/BNStory/National/home/

Re:Watch out for DHMO

[Cyberllama]

Honestly, does anyone who followed this incident believe that anyone other than the Boston PD/local government/etc was to blame for the wasted money?

These were not "hoax devices". A "hoax device" is meant to fool you. This wasn't meant to fool anyone, but fools were nevertheless fooled by it. A similar incident occured a couple of years ago when someone staged a protest outside of an army recruitment office dressed like prisoner from one of the famous abu-garib photographs. Wearing a black hood, standing on a crate, with wires hanging from his arms.

Apparently in that situation they also called in the bomb squad and charged the protesters with a "hoax device" because apparently wires are serious business and EVERYONE should know that you can't just go attaching wires to things this day in age and not expect the bomb squad to be called -- EVEN IF YOUR MIMICKING A FAMOUS PHOTOGRAPH THAT HAS BEEN SEEN ON NEWS BROADCASTS ALL OVER THE WORLD AD NASEUM FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS.

The appropriate response would be to start firing people. Clearly there are people in positions of power who simply do not belong there. These are people Who do not have the common sense that god gave to most creatures with an intellect greater than a tuna fish. Who can't look at protester with wires attached to his arms and say "Oh yeah, I've seen that photograph before" or who can't look at a god-damned light-bright for a popular tv show and say "Neat advertisement". Who can't understand that something INCH THICK composed almost entirely of LEDS does not have explosive potential. There is simply a limit to how tiny explosives can be, you need something capable of exploding -- some kind of fuel.

The city of Boston fucked up, big time. Instead of admitting their mistakes like men/women and firing the people responsible, they're going to go after their innocent victims in court and try to pass laws to put the burden of their stupidity on the public at large. Beware: If we mistakenly identify something completely innocuous as a bomb, it will be your fault for owning that innocuous item! Nice going, guys.

Re:Watch out for DHMO

[1u3hr]

The WWII booby trap was baited so obviously that it might as well have lit up with track lights and neon like in a Warner cartoon. Pistols. Ration packs. Binoculars...

So if it looks like a bomb, or if it DOESN'T look like a bomb, you treat it as a bomb. So you just spend your life hiding under your bed because absolutely anything outside is likely to be a bomb? Or maybe your bed is a bomb....

Re:Watch out for DHMO

[Jtheletter]

Yes. The idiots that put up the devices in the first place had to know that they would be inciting public panic. They knew darn well that after 9/11 the government cannot afford to get caught with its pants down, so they have to take every threat seriously. That includes panicked individuals calling in on tip lines reporting blinky signs in places that are not authorized. Personally I think those responsible for the advertising campaign should be fined 10x the amount the city spent, and the ones that installed the devices should have to spend a few weeks in a P.M.I.t.A. prison.

Yes, that response sounds entirely proportional and appropriate. And for the city workers who installed a traffic counter that was later incorrectly suspected to be an explosive device and detonated by the Boston Police Bomb Squad, those workers should have the exact same sentence right? They had to know that in this post-911 world ANYTHING with a wire, placed anywhere in the city could be a threat, even if the city itself ordered the placement of the device.

Or maybe, just maybe, you're a complete jackass who can't think for themselves and recognize that there were a lot more failures in these incidents than by the people who placed devices that were not bombs and were not intended to be interpretted as such. Even the legal definition of hoax device under MA law states that the device must be INTENDED by the placer to be interpretted as a threat in an effort to cause panic. No intent means no hoax, no matter how hard someone squints their eyes and declares something a bomb that doesn't look, function, or have anywhere near the same mass & volume as a bomb. And placement of something is not the only factor that should be used in determining if an object is an explosive, just being under a bridge does not make something a bomb, ask any homeless person. And let's say we give the bomb squad the benefit of the doubt and say the first 5 LED signs they found should have been treated like bombs, what about the next 5 that were identical, at what point do we establish a pattern of non-threat? Never? "Well, the first 99 devices we found all turned out to be harmless tape recorders afterall, but we're still treating number 100 as a live bomb because the others could have all been distractions from the real one." Yes, very plausible indeed. Putting them under bridges may not have been the smartest move by these artists, but to lay the blame 100% on them is rediculous. If we don't hold the people in power accountable for their failures as well as their successes then we only encourage incompetence.

As a resident of Boston, what I took away from this incident is that if you wanted to plant a real bomb somewhere in the city, you could easily distract the bomb squad for the entire day by leaving harmless electircal items under multiple bridges. Leaving you free to pull off a real act of terrorism while the police spend the ENTIRE DAY "defusing" the same harmless device over and over. Although you may have to wait a while since it will take them over 2 weeks to even notice that there are devices attached to bridges. Pathetic.

Re:Watch out for DHMO

[smooth wombat]

What crackheaded mods gave this an informative rating? It's typical Fox propaganda. Let's take each of the accusations in order.

for him to provide proof,

On December 7, 2002, Iraq submitted a 12,000 page document outlining what it claimed was evidence of its weapons of mass destruction capabilities. Much of the report was recycled from previous declarations (after all, if you've said you destroyed something you can't very well provide any new information) though some clarifications of previous declarations was also provided. The UN used this declaration to assist the inspectors which were in the country (see below) to verify Iraq's claims.

Further, as soon as the report came out, and before anyone had even looked at it, Donald Rumsfeld was saying the entire report was a bunch of lies.

Hey, here's an idea. Instead of shooting your mouth off and saying someone is lying, how about at least putting on a show of opening the documents and then lie about someone else lying.

let inspectors do their inspecting,

Straight from Hans Blix's report from February 14, 2003:

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidencethat the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

A bit further down the page we find:

More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own laboratory analytical capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations.

The only thing Hans' report does say is that not all of the destroyed material that Iraq claimed it had destroyed twelve years prior could be verified to have been destroyed. However, the inspectors continuing to work with the Iraqi officials to verify this claim.

And this is what Blix himself had to say in 2003 about Saddam's declarations:

"With this long period, I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991 may well be the truth," Blix told CNN television.

Common Dreams link

Further, it was the U.S. who didn't want the inspectors to continue their inspections because they weren't finding anything, even after the U.S. gave them specific locations to look at, and so were afraid that the longer the inspections went on without finding anything, the more public opinion would turn against their already conceived plans to invade and occupy Iraq.

of dismantling the weapons he did have at the time of the agreement.

He did not have any of the weapons despite Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld repeatedly stating, "We know he has them and we know where they are." If we knew where those weapons were, why didn't we provide that information to the UN inspectors who were on the ground looking for those weapons? Iraq's declaration showed that they had destroyed their wmd stockpiles and construction capabilities as directed to by previous UN resolutions and in those few cases where there were discrepancies, was working with the UN inspectors to clarify the questions. Continuing to state a lie enough times does not make it a fact.

Are we done now with the propaganda? It's not like poll after poll hasn't shown that people who watch Fox Noise are the most ill-informed people in the nation. You didn't need to offer proof of the validity of those polls.

Re:Watch out for DHMO

[dpilot]

So it was our job to do so?
We were anointed probation officers?

But more to the point, and where we are today... When Congress attempts to do something by passing a law, we speak quite fervently about the unintended consequences of that law. Anything any of us does has consequences, some intended, some not. The pragmatic issue is whether the unintended consequences outweigh the intended ones.

This wasn't rocket science. GHW Bush knew what the unintended consequences would be, and at the time he spoke of "fine tuning" the military and economic strength left for Saddam Hussein. The goal was enough to maintain a nation, but too little to threaten neighbors. Perhaps he stopped pounding them a little early, but he also knew the risks of landing just where we are, today.

The real problem with the Iraq war isn't now, and didn't start back in November. It began even before the war. Even if you forgive the entire intelligence fiasco, the entire thing was under-resourced. Even after toppling Saddam Hussein, we might have had 30-90 days to make their lives better, and we *would* have been welcomed as liberators. Instead, our soldiers watched their people loot, we didn't have the proper strength, training, or policies to do correct policing anyway, and it seems that "Iraq reconstruction" was really a feeding trough for US corporations. (Instead of putting Iraqis back to work, which *would* have helped more than most anything else we did.)

There's no good way out, now. Perhaps re-instituting the draft and getting our strength there up to 500,000 might do the job, but it's also possible that the well is SO poisoned after 4 years of fiddling around that even a real strength buildup wouldn't do it.

the finger

[Corpuscavernosa]

I'm giving this act the finger, AS HARD AS I CAN.

H. G. Wells would be a felon

[RingDev]

And all of the actors form War of the Worlds would be locked up...

And yet it still wouldn't make us any more safe from a real terrorist attack. Huh.

-Rick

Re:H. G. Wells would be a felon

[dircha]

"And all of the actors form War of the Worlds would be locked up.."

RTFA for crying out loud!

According to the article, you can only be held liable if 1) they (the government) react as if it were a real emergency, 2) you are aware of their overreaction, and 3) you fail to tell them that it is not a real emergency.

The War of the Worlds broadcast was broadcast with disclaimers. And I'm not aware of any government emergency response triggered by the broadcast. This law doesn't cover activities wasting private citizens' resources, only government resources. And CBS certainly would have informed the goverment of the nature of the program had they been aware of any official emergency response.

And the radio broadcast was ORSON Welles, not H.G. Welles.

Re:H. G. Wells would be a felon

[mabhatter654]

except under those conditions the Moonite incident clearly fails to be covered. While the Boston govt did overreact (1), the cartoon network people contacted them as soon as they heard about it (#2 fails) and made themselves available to answer questions (#3 fails)... which the Boston PD REFUSED to acknowledge and continued to propagate the false info. The Cartoon Network people also did this in several other cities with no police problems. This was clearly deliberate, planned mismanagement by the Boston PD.. any law needs to take that into account with even harsher punishment for being wrong.

Eh?

[gstoddart]

The amendments include extensions to the prohibitions on the spread of false information and mailing threats, increases to maximum prison terms, and allowances for civil suits so that local and federal governments can attempt to recoup expenses related to an incident.

Wait a minute here. How the hell can the government enter into civil suits?

These are suits which are outside of the usual prosecutorial parts of the justice system -- ie civilian.

They can pass a law to make it a crime, but I can't imagine the badness of the precedent of governments being able to take civil action. Take criminal action, or bugger off. You can't really ask to do both.

Does this even have a valid basis in law?

Cheers

Re:Eh?

[DragonWriter]

How the hell can the government enter into civil suits?

The government has always been able to enter civil suits.

These are suits which are outside of the usual prosecutorial parts of the justice system -- ie civilian.

Yes, they are outside of the criminal justice system. That means, for one thing, no one is going to be sent to jail, executed, etc.

Government engages in civil lawsuits all the time.

They can pass a law to make it a crime, but I can't imagine the badness of the precedent of governments being able to take civil action.

Government has been able to take civil action forever. So there is no real precedent in it being able to do so now.

Take criminal action, or bugger off. You can't really ask to do both.

Not only can they, but they have been for quite some time.

Wait...

[Aadain2001]

So, if a local/state government agency overreacts and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on something that you basic citizen wouldn't even look at twice (see Mooninites), they can sue the group/person/etc that they overreacted too for large sums of money? How is this not a gigantic loophole just asking for $$$$$ to be "recovered" from people/groups that disagree with said government agencies?

If a group posts fliers and holds rallies against some government official because he is corrupt, couldn't he simply call in the police/feds on the group as a "possible terrorist group", ransack their offices, etc, run up a huge bill and then sue the group out of existence under this new bill?

Re:Wait...

[Chris Burke]

If a group posts fliers and holds rallies against some government official because he is corrupt, couldn't he simply call in the police/feds on the group as a "possible terrorist group", ransack their offices, etc, run up a huge bill and then sue the group out of existence under this new bill?

Yes! This is one step shy of being the domestic equivalent of the "enemy combatant" doctrine (I say doctrine because as far as I know none of our laws refer to the concept of the "enemy combatant" and that's just some new thing Bush made up). With enemy combatants, they can simply declare you to be one and at that point your guilt or innocence is irrelevent. The mere fact that they thought you were an enemy fighter is enough for them to do whatever they want.

Here, they at least aren't able to ignore the fact that you are actually innocent of plotting any real terrorist act, but they are still able to punish you for the fact that they merely thought you might be a terrorist. So all they have to do is say that they thought some activity of yours was terrorist-related, and when it turns out not to be, any expenses they incured "figuring out" what they already knew are your problem. So your innocence is irrelevent in the sense that you are still punished, just not as severely.

This is going to be fantastic for anyone who enjoys abusing their law enforcement powers. Imagine being able to accuse any woman wearing a short skirt of being a prostitute, drag her down to the station, and when it turns out there's no evidence of her being a prostitute, you can then charge her with the crime of making you think she was a prostitute. That short skirt was very deceiving! Okay, well, actually it wasn't even that short of a skirt. But it doesn't matter how stupid the inference is, the cop says he thought it was true! Ah, such a glorious time it is for fascists. If this bill passes, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the same principle is applied to other crimes like prostitution.

Re:Thus, ever higher

[anagama]

When we get to that point, expect all out lawlessness to ensue. If jay walking will get you a few years, you might as well do a real crime. And when minor crimes take most of your life, WTF, might as well go out big.

Increasingly draconian sententencing is rather counter-productive in the sense that it may help increase the severity of crimes performed, or the desperation of those close to being nabbed.

Re:I'm sorry, that's not a questions about hair.

[BakaHoushi]

I think of it another way. Captain Kirk once said, Alcohol is the cause of, and solution to, most of life's problems.

Government is the cause of all of life's problems, but have legislation preventing the solutions from being released to the general public.

A story from the military

[RingDev]

Once when I was in the military, stationed in Okinawa, we had a situation. The political environment wasn't exactly good for us right then, a drunk Marine had hit and run a local Prom Queen, we had a few large groups of protesters at the base gates, and it looked like the newly elected official for the island was going to push for moving the Marines out of Japan. So anyways, on night while walking home from the base PX (err, a mall for ya civies) I saw a bulging cardboard box sitting by a mail box in front of one of the Barracks (it caught my eye, but it was a ways off). When I got to my barracks I told the Duty that there was a box by the mail box in front of the other barracks. It was like hot potato. Given the social/political climate at the time, it very well could have been a bomb, and no one wanted to be the one to go poking at it first. After way to much drama, I wound up going back out with a budy to look at it.

It was a pair of boots in the box.

I still don't know who the clown was who left his boots in a box by the mail, but it had the Duty on the verge of calling the MPs, Hazmat, and the OOD.

Point being, sometimes innoculous crap is just that. The bitch of it though, is that some times it isn't.

-Rick

Re:A story from the military

[RingDev]

My memory has faded a bit since that happened, but I think he got 10 years in a prison up on the mainland. And Japanesse prisons are significantly less pleasant than the Brig from what I hear.

He was hardly an isolated incident unfortunately. The list of horrendous acts drunken members of the military have done in Okinawa is rather staggering. It was with good reason that the protesters were at our gates.

-Rick

Re:A story from the military

[kalirion]

If you're menaced by a lout in a bar with a broken bottle, who do you want to come to your rescue? Do you want a nice, reasonable, New York Times reading diplomatic type, who'll ask everyone to sit down and discuss it?

No, you want a bigger lout with a bigger broken bottle.

Personally, I'd prefer an honest bouncer. You just can't trust where louts with broken bottles will look to get their kicks next.

Re:A story from the military

[Dorceon]

If you're menaced by a lout in a bar with a broken bottle, who do you want to come to your rescue? Do you want a nice, reasonable, New York Times reading diplomatic type, who'll ask everyone to sit down and discuss it?

Depends: Can I outrun the poindexter? If so, I'm not the one who has to deal with the lout.

Re:Thus, ever higher

[dykofone]

Outstanding point, and reminds me of being 16 when a friend and I tried to buy paintballs. Not paintball guns, just the paintballs. We were instructed by the clerk at checkout that we must be 18 to purchase paintballs, and had to show ID. We left, rather disappointed, and had a chat about it in the parking lot. We realized that "it's illegal for us to buy them, and it's illegal for us to steal them," so, naturally, we chose the option that would get us our damn paintballs.

We had to break the law to get our paintballs, and we had to chose the option that was not only illegal, but highly immoral. It's certainly sophomoric logic, but I'm pretty sure it's the type of logic that would prevail in an over-lawed state.

For the love of God

[deblau]

Stop linking to Ars. They never provide links to the actual laws or court filings. As a result, any discussion here will be flawed, since it's based on second-hand editorializing at best. If you want to actually read the law, it's here.

The meat of it:

(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute [a hoax] is liable in a civil action to any party incurring expenses incident to any emergency or investigative response to that conduct, for those expenses.
(2) EFFECT OF CONDUCT-
(A) IN GENERAL- A person described in subparagraph (B) is liable in a civil action to any party described in subparagraph (B)(ii) for any expenses that are incurred by that party--
(i) incident to any emergency or investigative response to any conduct described in subparagraph (B)(i); and
(ii) after the person that engaged in that conduct should have informed that party of the actual nature of the activity.
(B) APPLICABILITY- A person described in this subparagraph is any person that--
(i) engages in any conduct that has the effect of conveying false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed to indicate that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute [a hoax];
(ii) receives actual notice that another party is taking emergency or investigative action because that party believes that the information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute [a hoax]; and
(iii) after receiving such notice, fails to promptly and reasonably inform 1 or more parties described in clause (ii) of the actual nature of the activity.

Discuss.

Re:Boston

[e4g4]

And the real kicker is that a bomb, should some city in the US fall victim to one, is going to be precisely that: a ladies' handbag, a cardboard box, or even a pile of trash (as a number of IEDs in Iraq were). What it sure as hell isn't going to be is a bloody lighted sign placed in a location visible to any/all passersby. If you want the bomb to stay in one place until detonation, in an area that gets high people traffic - would you put a whole bunch of leds in the shape of a pop culture icon on the fucking outside of it? Sure, maybe one or two discreet leds to show armed/unarmed status. Surely the one thing we should have learned from the many Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attacks around the world is that these people are not idiots. If they're smart enough to con an otherwise reasonable person into blowing themselves up, and they're smart enough to build a massive, worldwide, decentralized terrorist organization, then they're abso-fucking-lutely smart enough to conceal a bomb in an urban environment. I'm pretty sure that a number of the higher-ups in the "war on terror" underestimated the capabilities of Al Qaeda et al, even after 9/11, simply because a large majority of them come from so-called "third world countries" and more or less lack formal (as in western style university/corporate/military) training. And yet, the engineering and combat tactics by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have continuously and dramatically improved.

Frankly, this whole post can be summed up as me yelling "Learn some fucking common sense!" at the current administration (yes, yes, this was Boston local government - but it was the Bush administration that injected them with fear and paranoia), but I suppose I should know better, given that anyone actively seeking (and attaining) high public office is already clearly lacking a common sense gland.

*to the parent*: btw, didn't mean to get all serious in reply to your comment - it was hilarious. One question though - who carries a rubber chicken in their pocket? :-P.

I've taken a look at the proposed amendment and...

[Diacre]

It would seem that since Senator Kennedy of Massachussettes is the sponsor of the bill this has something to do with the Mooninite fallout. IANAL but I still didn't read anything much that would put the guerilla marketing company in too much extra trouble. The thing that stands out to me is that the amended version still says

`(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1) is liable in a civil action to any party incurring expenses incident to any emergency or investigative response to that conduct, for those expenses.

The key I think is in the first part of the sentence that says "...with intent to convey false or misleading information...". I guess a case could be made that their intent was to convey false or misleading information by not providing any information but it seems like that is stretching it.

For the links I used:
the proposed amendment and its full text
Unamended Section 1038 of Title 18 of the US Code
section 2332b since the amendment adds a reference to section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of this title ( Title 18 )

Make it retroactive apply it to the government!

[ukemike]

They should make it retroactive and then apply it to the Department of Homeland Security. We know that politics has been the motive of raising the alert level.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10 -ridge-alerts_x.htm

This would criminalize this deplorable government behavior. It would also make it illegal for the government to make up BS about WMDs in some poor country who's oil we want.