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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

the finger

[Corpuscavernosa]

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

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

[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.

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

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.