Slashdot Mirror


Justice Department's Bio-terror Mistake

destinyland writes "University professor and artist Steve Kurtz publicizes the history of chemical weapons with performance art pieces. The day his wife died of a heart attack, 911 responders mistook his scientific equipment for bioterrorism supplies. After he was detained for 22 hours, Homeland Security cordoned off his block, and a search was performed on his house in hazmat suits, they found nothing. Now they're prosecuting him for "mail fraud" for the way he obtained $256 of harmless bacteria."

477 comments

  1. Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Incidents like this and other such just prove that terror(ists) are winning. Post 9/11, everybody is still in panic.

    1. Re:Terror is winning by zxnos · · Score: 1

      just proves that those who have 'power' cant be wrong...

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    2. Re:Terror is winning by SueAnnSueAnn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the terrorists are in our government.

      This is one of over a hundred such cases.

      Hale to the Fatherland.

      Sue

    3. Re:Terror is winning by TarPitt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Power without ethics IS terrorism

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
    4. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh come on. They mistook his disabled chemical weapons for... chemical weapons. I agree that people scare stupidly easily (see: boston) but this isn't a good example. These *really did* look just like the weapons they thought they were.

    5. Re:Terror is winning by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Informative

      These *really did* look just like the weapons they thought they were.
      The problem is that, after they discovered that he did not have WMD, they still tried to pin something on him. Why can't they just admit that they were mistaken and let it go? Welcome to America. When the police think you have done something wrong, then come hell or high water they will try to find something they can charge you with.
    6. Re:Terror is winning by anagama · · Score: 1

      I agree that people scare stupidly easily (see: boston) but this isn't a good example.

      So it seems that unless you are a pot-bellied, glued-to-the-tube, backyard BBQ, All American meat head, there's no place left for you in the good 'ol US of A. Before we know it, all the smart people, or people with different ideas, will be in jail or litigated into bankruptcy and living under bridges where the cops can more easily harass them. I'm so proud to be an American -- now where's my remote?
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    7. Re:Terror is winning by kamapuaa · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Did you skip the part about the guy recreating 50's Germ Warfare experiments? This isn't an irrational paranoid panic response. I'd hope any government organization anywhere in the world would thoroughly investigate all recreations of Germ Warfare experiments. What would you suggest, the government just letting things slide?

      It's not panic, it's just common sense.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    8. Re:Terror is winning by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you skip the part about the guy recreating 50's Germ Warfare experiments?
      Did you skip the part about them using harmless bacteria?
      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    9. Re:Terror is winning by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      So where's the next geek haven? Canada? China? Taiwan? Japan?

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    10. Re:Terror is winning by markov_chain · · Score: 2, Funny

      Harmless unless you have a specific type of DNA, in which case the bacteria cause a heart attack ;)

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    11. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      incidents like this prove little beyond the inequities of government. this was not insightful. it was droll, improve the moderating. no one i know (live far from new york) was in panic on 9/11, and we're definitely not in a state of panic now.

      you don't have to believe in the police state. instead do what you can to make the world better, thats how it works. do you decide how life is to be or a regime?

    12. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      HAHAH f@#$%ing stupid overly-paranoid ignorant American sheeple. Oh, wait, I'm an American.

    13. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Land of the free", huh? :-(

    14. Re:Terror is winning by Dak+RIT · · Score: 4, Informative

      I picked Taiwan. Most of the population here is still actively fighting for ever-increasing rights.

    15. Re:Terror is winning by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you trying to suggest the police are different anywhere else?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    16. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Given that the article linked had exactly one side of the story, it's not "totally obvious" that the charge is bogus. If you only heard OJ's side of the story you'd think he was innocent too.

    17. Re:Terror is winning by Skreems · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Part of the case that the good Dr. still can't talk about publicly is that he was also a suspect in his wife's death, and hounded about this by the FBI as well. He's still under a gag order on this point, which is why the documentary mentioned in the piece re-enacts those parts of the story with actors.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    18. Re:Terror is winning by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes. And they were different before as well. Adopting the third world practice of making people dissappear is not helping things but thankfully that's still the spooks plus Edgar Hoover's crowd and not professional law enforcement.

    19. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But Mom! All the other kids are doing it!"

      Heh, the captcha is "coward."

    20. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sheeple?

      sigh... you nerds and your lingo

    21. Re:Terror is winning by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How does "looking for something to pin on someone you think is guilty" become "making people dissappear(sic)" exactly?

      Cops everywhere work on the premise that you're either a "good guy" or you're a "scumbag". They've always worked on this premise, even in your precious United States. That's the culture of law enforcement. They're the "thin blue line" between civilization and chaos, remember.

      That's why we have a legal system and don't just leave justice up to the police.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    22. Re:Terror is winning by davetd02 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems too easy to play the "OMG, government overeaching!" card here.

      Look at what actually happened. He created an art project designed to look like a biological warfare project. His whole POINT was to make it look like it was dangerous. Having his house searched should be a sign that he succeeded in his goals. If the police walk in to find something that exactly replicates a biological warfare setup, I should hope that they stop and call the experts before casually dismissing it. The only difference between his project and something deadly was the fact that he used harmless bacteria. The difference in bacteria was completely invisible to an officer on the scene and possibly even to a biology expert without testing. He should take it as a compliment that his art project worked well enough to fool the police. The search of his house was definitely erring in the right direction, especially given that there have been biological attacks through the mail in the US.

      The mail fraud charge is a closer case, but it's far from obvious based on a one-sided article that it's baseless. The American Type Culture Collection is a research system, not a toy. They provide cultures that range from harmless to deadly, and they understandably don't sell their wares to any idiot who walks in off the street. There's a reason why I can't just all up and place an order for 50 ml of HIV. Even something that's only mildly dangerous -- maybe E. coli -- can result in some nasty accidents if mis-handled. To order from the ATCC, "You must be able to demonstrate that your expertise and your institution's facilities are appropriate for handling biological materials." That seems like a pretty good common-sense restriction. If you don't have the appropriate facilities to handle biological materials the ATCC won't sell them to you. If our artist friend lied in order to trick the ATCC into thinking that he worked for a university that had biological facilities then that seems like mail fraud to me. Sure, in this case the whole thing got shut down before anybody got hurt, but that doesn't lessen the importance of maintaining the integrity of the ATCC system. Saying "he shouldn't be punished, nobody got hurt" is like saying "I shouldn't get a speeding ticket, I didn't hit anybody." The restriction on the ATCC is legitimate and he broke it, apparently by lying in an attempt to deceive them. That's fraud if true.

      Let's see a more balanced source.

    23. Re:Terror is winning by Sploff · · Score: 1

      The Economist is running an eloquent elaboration of this under the title Civil liberties under threat, The real price of freedom.

      I will be plastering this series on my office door as it is published. Their version of parents statement:

      If the war against terrorism is a war at all, it is like the cold war--one that will last for decades. Although a real threat exists, to let security trump liberty in every case would corrode the civilised world's sense of what it is and wants to be.
    24. Re:Terror is winning by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Troll

      what part of harmless bacteria don't you understand?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    25. Re:Terror is winning by godless+dave · · Score: 1

      Right, but they did investigate, found out they were harmless, but didn't drop the investigation - they charged him anyway.

      --
      "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
    26. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Incidents like this and other such just prove that terror(ists) are winning. Post 9/11, everybody is still in panic.

      Letting a cop or copette make a fool of themselves is a sure path to trumped-up charges. 9/11 just made it easier to use terrorism as an excuse for their own terrorism wreaked on the American people. Now they are allowed to turn a piece of dog crap on the street into a bio-event, so they can play dress-up in bunny suits, then pump their dicks to show what brave lads they all were.

    27. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can turn any bacteria into a fairly virulent one with certain strands of DNA, what's your point?

    28. Re:Terror is winning by TaleSpinner · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No. Terrorism has already won. I sat there on 9/11, watching the news and crying. Crying for the innocent people who were murdered, yes, but also crying for the end of freedom. The end of civil rights. I knew at that moment that "liberty" would never again be anything but a hollow mockery of itself. I knew the gov't - to "protect" us - would strip us of the entire Bill of Rights and more besides. And that is exactly what they did. What RICO began, what the "War on (Some) Drugs" carried through, we, ourselves, through our government, have completed. And don't lecture me about the Republicans did this or the Democrats did something else. Both sides of the aisle voted for these things. Both share the blame.

      As Franklin observed, those who would trade their liberty for imagined security deserve neither. And now we have neither, nor are we ever going to. There are times when I look at my 10 year old son and I am consumed with guilt at what I have brought him into.

    29. Re:Terror is winning by BorgDrone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why we have a legal system and don't just leave justice up to the police.

      Unless they say you're a 'terrah' suspect and ship you off to guantanamo bay without any kind of trial.
    30. Re:Terror is winning by haeger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If they didn't pin something on him he would be able to sue, no?
      This way, if they can make anything stick, he can't sue them for wrongdoing.

      But what the hell do I know. I'm not even american.

      .haeger

      --
      You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
    31. Re:Terror is winning by JustOK · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Land of the free"*
      *other charges may apply

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    32. Re:Terror is winning by butlerdi · · Score: 1
      The underlying (2004) article is pretty scarry http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8278-2004Jun1?language=printer, just hope they never open my fridge if I ever need help. from the article

      And obviously, says Lt. Jake Ulewski, spokesman for the Buffalo police, what the cops eyeballed raised some alarms. "He's making cultures? That's a little off the wall."
      --
      "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
    33. Re:Terror is winning by rossifer · · Score: 1

      I'm aiming for someplace where English is at least routinely spoken. New Zealand, Ireland, Netherlands, India...

    34. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Cops everywhere work on the premise that you're either a "good guy" or you're a "scumbag".

      The canonical form of this statement is, "To a cop, there are three kinds of people in the world -- cops, cops' families and suspects."

    35. Re:Terror is winning by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      A balanced source, or a balanced jury, would look at not only what sort of crime was committed, but also what harm inflicted by the crime. In this case it's absolutely none whatsoever, unless you also take into account the harm inflicted by the law enforcement itself (we can disregard here the initial investigation of the biological material itself, which was more than likely justified) -- which is a lot more substantial. Unless you think people should be held guilty for crimes committed against them, this guy hasn't done much more wrong than if he was handballing in a game of football. Hardly the kind of stuff worth 20 years in prison.

    36. Re:Terror is winning by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      I have heard of a place although I do not know where it is located, but it is call Rapture, or something like that. Some say it is below the sea.

    37. Re:Terror is winning by mgblst · · Score: 1

      This what people fear, the government having this nanny state mentality. Where you are not doing something on the approved list (watching tv, eating, working), so you have to be shut down. The Government isn't there to approve of disapprove of what you do, until you start breaking the law.

    38. Re:Terror is winning by rs79 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My initial reaction to this was "oh god poor bastard". But after reading the indictment it's pretty obvious to me that want to send a message: "if you order bugs and aren't bona fide, you're going down.

      From their point of view he could have ordered any bug.

      Plus, he ordered two bugs he thought were harmless and then by his own admission "turns out one is not so harmless and can cause pbuemonia".

      Is he being made an example of? Probably.

      Is it warrented? Tough call. Might this make any other bio prof think twice before ordering bugs for some purpose not what they claimed? Probably.

      Will this stop a bio terrorist? No.

      The liability for the USG is pretty big here. Somebody goes to see his show then gets pnuemonia, then dies. The investigation reveals an artist surrepticuously ordered bacteria breaking all sort of safeguards and rules along the way. He could have used flourescine powder not real bacteria and just as effective a demonstration

      Would it seem reasonable to you that the USG's response in this case would be "yeah it happens". Or, if it were, say your daughter who died would you want them to "do something" like maybe punish the bio-guy who flat out violated the terms and conditions under which they were able to get the bugs?

      The govt is a big dumb machine. It has rules. Break them and you really can't expect nothing will happen.

      I can't say I feel sorry for these guys. I appreciate their ideas and work, but this was just callously stupid. I doubt he'll get 20 years but my guess is they won't get off scot free. And I'm not sure they should.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    39. Re:Terror is winning by Frantactical+Fruke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mistaking an artist
      who works in full view of the public,
      whose work can be found in a minute's googling,
      who documents every step he takes,

      for a terrorist
      who might be expected to make at least a token effort to keep his doings secret, no matter how inept he is,

      is pretty idiotic.

      These are face-saving measures, nothing else.
      And if, in mailing out harmless bacteria to a person, the institute did not at least google his university and status, to make sure he was permitted to receive said harmless bacteria, Mr. Kurtz did the authorities a favor in uncovering sloppy security procedures at said institute, which should then be the party requiring prosecution instead of Mr. Kurtz.

      But perhaps you think that journalists who smuggle guns on airplanes and then reveal the flaws in airport security to the public should be thrown in jail as well. If intentions don't count, then every tank truck driver carrying hazardous substances who has an accident should be prosecuted as a terrorist.

    40. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I was reading your comment in a Don LaFontaine voice.

    41. Re:Terror is winning by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Let's grab a piece of land and declare independence. It's worked before, you know.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    42. Re:Terror is winning by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Dude. Virtually no one dies from pneumonia anymore, and no one fit to go to an art exhibition. You could just as well call a spoon a deadly weapon, and a spoon that none of the audience is invited to come in contact with at that. Whether or not Kurtz should be made an example of is a question of what kind of society you want. If you want a society where everyone toes the line, then you probably want sanctions against his kind of art anyway, and then you're down the slippery slope of limiting freedom of expression. Also note that this case isn't about the potential harmfulness of his bacteria.

      No. This is a case of fraud. The way you put it is equivalent to saying defrauding a billionaire is much worse than defrauding a pauper, since he could have got so much more. But even though he defrauded a billionaire, he only took $256 of relatively harmless bacteria -- so harmless, in fact, that those charges were dropped.

    43. Re:Terror is winning by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Right. Someone with some kind of culture can't be a good guy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    44. Re:Terror is winning by pipatron · · Score: 1

      There are times when I look at my 10 year old son and I am consumed with guilt at what I have brought him into.

      There's no point feeling guilty about things that cannot be undone, but feel free to spread the word, to your son, and others that might think putting kids to this world is a great idea: http://www.vhemt.org/

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    45. Re:Terror is winning by bentcd · · Score: 1

      The problem is that, after they discovered that he did not have WMD, they still tried to pin something on him. Why can't they just admit that they were mistaken and let it go? They need to save face.
      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    46. Re:Terror is winning by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hale

      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hail

      If you're going to indulge in political satire, at least learn your fascist salutes please.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    47. Re:Terror is winning by HangingChad · · Score: 1

      after they discovered that he did not have WMD, they still tried to pin something on him

      Because if they didn't he could sue them. Dude's wife dies and they shake him down for 22 hours, think how that's going to play with a jury. So they had to find something to use as a bargaining chip to make the potential lawsuit go away.

      Besides, if there are too many stories like this our do-nothing Congress might be tempted to clip their wings. Couldn't have that, now could we? So they look until they find something.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    48. Re:Terror is winning by phiwum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. Terrorism has already won. I sat there on 9/11, watching the news and crying. Crying for the innocent people who were murdered, yes, but also crying for the end of freedom. The end of civil rights. I knew at that moment that "liberty" would never again be anything but a hollow mockery of itself. I knew the gov't - to "protect" us - would strip us of the entire Bill of Rights and more besides. And that is exactly what they did. What RICO began, what the "War on (Some) Drugs" carried through, we, ourselves, through our government, have completed. And don't lecture me about the Republicans did this or the Democrats did something else. Both sides of the aisle voted for these things. Both share the blame.

      Well, what you "knew" is just silly hyperbole. Liberty is not a "hollow mockery of itself" and the Bill of Rights is still the law of the land.

      These exaggerations don't help explain what is really going on. Civil rights have been eroded to some extent, generally by well-meaning people who aim to protect US citizens—and perhaps don't mind having greater power and responsibility. The situation is certainly grave, especially when we consider other abuses that the US is meting out to foreign suspects. Balancing freedom and protection will be a pretty difficult road ahead, and it's pretty clear that so far, the govt. is doing a pretty bad job of it.

      But let's just drop this silliness about liberty being a mockery of itself. There are relatively few days when we really notice the changes affecting us personally. Visits to the airport, govt. offices and tourist traps are notably less pleasant, with more intrusive security and a whole lot less courtesy. A few of us may even have become innocent suspects due to the new fear, and that's a horrible thing. And we need to do something to fix the overreaction. An overreaction in the other direction, including implications that the government is repealing the Bill of Rights under the guise of "protection", just doesn't seem all that useful to me.

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    49. Re:Terror is winning by Oligonicella · · Score: 1, Informative

      Dude, you are full of shit. 61,472 due to influenze/pnemonia, 2004.

    50. Re:Terror is winning by peragrin · · Score: 0

      >>That's why we have a legal system and don't just leave justice up to the police.

      Unless they say you're a 'terrah' suspect and ship you off to guantanamo bay without any kind of trial.

      of course there is no one born in the USA in Guantanamo bay. It is the only reason they haven't been shut down by the courts because everyone there was born in and is a citizen of another country.

      Of course that can change for the worse, then again all the advisors to bush that help setup that prision have "resigned" so they don't make the republican party look bad.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    51. Re:Terror is winning by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Nice spin, but bogus. Someone with certain DNA dies from otherwise harmless bacteria. Not the same as converting a bacterium into a virulent strain.

    52. Re:Terror is winning by toganet · · Score: 5, Informative

      Jose Padilla
      Yasser Esam Hamdi
      Kevin James

      Were born in the US, and are just a few of the US Citizens in Gitmo
      I'm not saying any of these men are innocent -- just that they deserve due process under the law like any other citizen, regardless their religion or hairstyle.

    53. Re:Terror is winning by The_reformant · · Score: 1

      I agree this guy certainly comes across as a wack job. Anyone who thinks its artisitc to recreate a WWII era germ warfare experiment by shooting (even "harmless") bacteria at gunea pigs off the isle of lewis desreves everything they get in my opinion.

      This guy has obviously courted controversy to get exposure for his "art" including breaking the law to obtain bacteria cultures. This should in my opinion be an open and shut case.

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this post is too small to contain.
    54. Re:Terror is winning by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1

      but also what harm inflicted by the crime.

      You forgot one important thing... what harm _could_ have been inflicted. As the grandparent posted earlier... you don't fight a speeding ticket using the fact that nobody got hurt as a defense. A balanced jury will look at the potential outcomes.
      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    55. Re:Terror is winning by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "As Franklin observed, those who would trade their liberty for imagined security deserve neither."

      Worthless tropes and 'sky-is-falling' Chickenlittle-isms for $1000, Chuck.

      1) We constantly trade liberty for security - it's called the social contract. I don't have the liberty of doing whatever I want, so I don't have to worry about you doing whatever you want which might be harmful to me. Ever stop at a stop sign when nobody was around? Or a stoplight? WHY? There is no sensible reason, except that you are willfully trading your basic human reason for habits of willful obedience to that stop sign/light. Why? Because you hope that everyone ELSE on the road habitually observes them, making the road a safer place.

      2) If you're consumed with guilt, then I DO feel sorry for your kid. Because he's going to grow up with this excruciating, pessimistic, cynical environment that won't let him enjoy that we are safer, more comfortable, living longer than any humans IN HISTORY. Oh noes! Our "freedoms" are gone...really? What "freedoms" can't you exercise today that you could before? Flying on a plane anonymously? Making SIMULATED CHEMICAL WEAPONS as "art"? Jesus, I HOPE the government pays close attention.
      Strip us of the Bill of Rights? Hyperventilate much?
      Establish a government religion? I can't remember when God was being driven more strongly OUT of government than today.
      Abridge freedom of speech? No, I can't say "nigger" without being sued as a racist, is that what you meant? That's not the government, that's stupid political correctness spurred by what? WHITE GUILT.
      Abridge the freedom of the press? Capitalism and shallow greed have created the mainstream media, that's not the government's fault...hell, they subsidize the most incessantly anti-US station nationwide, NPR.
      Peacably assemble? That's a tough one. I don't like the "protest zones" that people are being shunted into, but I also don't believe there's a constitutional right for you to spoil MY event because you're a dick. Then again, abortion protestors have been legally banned from certain areas, so at least it's both sides, no?

      That's the first amendment - please, list some that support your hysterical statements.

      --
      -Styopa
    56. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone with certain DNA dies from eating peanuts. What's your point?

    57. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course there is no one born in the USA in Guantanamo bay. Being born in the USA is not a requirement for American citizenship.
    58. Re:Terror is winning by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      If they didn't pin something on him he would be able to sue, no? No. If the police have reason to search his home, and a judge issues a search warrant, he can't sue the police, city, or anyone else, because they didn't do anything wrong. In fact, having his home searched and nothing incriminating found is far better than the alternative of having his home nuked from orbit, just to be sure.
    59. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the thin blue line (i think this is what you were referring to), great documentary about how when the justice system gets moving in one direction, it will never turn back regardless how obvious it is that they are mistaken. it's a protective mechanism--their authority relies on the assumption by most people that they always know what they're doing and are always right. start admitting mistakes and that changes.

    60. Re:Terror is winning by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      But this is a "fraud", not unlawful use of hazardous biological materials, so the harm he could have done is fairly irrelevant. It's as if you defraud a billionaire of 200 bucks, and it was considered much graver because he was a billionaire, since the fraud easily could have been worse. Or if you need to finish the parable of speeding: This is as if he drove at 51 mph in a 50 mph zone, and and got prosecuted because he could have been driving at more than 200 mph in his fancy car.

      For what the charges are about, this is completely unreasonable.

    61. Re:Terror is winning by BlackSabbath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "There are relatively few days when we really notice the changes affecting us personally."

      In most of the world's undemocratic regimes, life goes on as normal for most people. They get up, do their thing, come home, go to bed, and start all over again the next day. Most of these regimes are considered undemocratic and are on UN and State Department lists as human rights abusers.

      Yes, life goes on as normal for most people, just like it did in Germany in the late 30's and the Soviet bloc countries before the 90's. Normal ... that is, until malice or circumstance force you to the edge of the normal curve and for some reason or other you come to the attention of those whose attention is most unwelcome. Then you get to notice the changes up close.

      But hey - for your neighbours this will just be one of those "relatively few days when we really notice the changes affecting us personally".

      If you've got 5 minutes lookup Martin Niemöller.

      Lack of empathy among the governed is the greatest boon to those with dictatorial ambitions.

    62. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hold that power, the special "right" to employ coercion (meaning physical force) as one's means, is unethical by its own definition. Imagine if the common man could posess that special right -- your neighbor for example -- I doubt you'd claim that such a scenario could possibly be ethical.

      So what's so different about government? Government is, after all, nothing but a collection of common men. If all men are supposedly equal, then how did some men (government) obtain the ability to suspend the code of ethics?

    63. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Civil rights have been eroded to some extent

      Is that like being 'a little bit pregnant'??

    64. Re:Terror is winning by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      What suprizes me is the '9/11' (dramatic music playing) did not have anything to do with bombs, nuclear attacks, biological agents et la. It had every thing to do with the fact that the aircraft industry had know for over 30 years that if hijackers can get to the flight deck of a plane they can control it. Had the cockpit doors been reinforced and locked as was initially sugested in the 1970s after the first waves of aircraft hijackings and after every one since, '9/11' (dramatic music playing) could never have happened.

    65. Re:Terror is winning by kevinbr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "......ne who thinks its artisitc to recreate a WWII era germ warfare experiment by shooting (even "harmless") bacteria at gunea pigs off the isle of lewis desreves everything they get in my opinion......."

      How nice of you to believe in Laws and Justice. So if your neighbor thinks you are a whack job and calls the police, should we defend you or agree with your neighbor that you deserve whatever the law can dish out.

      At some point in everyones they could perform some action that some other person classes as "whackjob".

      That is why we have the rule of laws, not the rule of your personal opinion.

    66. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what are you, some kind of faggot prophet?

      keep crying, bitch, that'll fix everything

    67. Re:Terror is winning by dwarfking · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So by your definition, what is happening in Myanmar isn't considered terrorism because your definition only applies to the US? I guess US law enforcement over reacting and charging someone with a crime, who will get a day in court, is worse than when a known totalitarian regime actively kills people in public.

    68. Re:Terror is winning by Vulva+R.+Thompson,+P · · Score: 4, Funny

      I did the same thing except with Gilbert Godfried's voice.

      You definitely made the better choice.

    69. Re:Terror is winning by dwarfking · · Score: 1

      Did you skip the part about them using harmless bacteria?

      Which could only be proven by performing proper testing, which takes time, or do you just take the word of the guy who likes getting bacteria and making germ warfare experiments?

    70. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying "he shouldn't be punished, nobody got hurt" is like saying "I shouldn't get a speeding ticket, I didn't hit anybody." Speeding increases the risk to others, harmless bacteria doesn't.
    71. Re:Terror is winning by njfuzzy · · Score: 1
      I'm going to ignore my Mod points, and comment instead...


      There is something really wrong in America right now. At first glance, it's easy to say "The Terrorists Are Winning" because we are all afraid. However, we are not just afraid because of Terrorists-- at least, not the ones that most people think of.

      We are afraid because of people in power who are abusing, and inflating, our fears, to further their own agendas. My favorite example is how you can't bring an 8 oz. water bottle on a plane, and for a while couldn't bring a fingernail clipper. The idea here isn't to make us safe-- it is to make us feel so inconvenienced that we know the powers that be are trying really hard to make us feel safe. This isn't an effort to protect us, it is a marketing effort on the part of the politicians in power. It doesn't protect us from anything.

      My point is that it isn't "We are all afraid, so the Terrorists are winning"-- it is "We are all afraid, because our own leaders are using our fear to have better control over us." We are afraid because certain people in power, and others who want it, know that they can control us better if we see them as protecting us from the unfaceable threat of the brown-skinned, foreign-language-speaking, different-religion "Terrorists".

      Terrorism is creating fear in a civilian population, to achieve political and idealogical goals. Osama Bin Laden is no more guilty of Terrorism, by that definition, than George W. Bush. One of those men is committing terrorism on a people he sees as an enemy-- the other on his own people.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    72. Re:Terror is winning by tmosley · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pnuemonia is caused by Pseudomonas aeurgenosa, which is present on the skin and could be isolated by anyone with just a little bit of microbiology experience. I guess that makes us all terrorists now. Hell, most of us have even worse stuff crawling around on our skin, bugs that could kill if they got into your body and multiplied, but he body is designed to defend against them. Just having them around in a vial is no more dangerous than leaving a stool sample in a closed container on your table. This case is somewhat similar to the "plague professor" from Texas Tech Health Sciences Center a few years ago. The local prosecutor had a vendetta out on this guy because he caused a scare, and ended up putting him in jail for quite a while for not filling out the right paperwork on shipping some bacteria samples from Africa. This is something that ANY professor could be taken down for. From speaking with the professors there, I can tell you it has had a real chilling effect on research at that institution. Everyone is so uptight that it's hard to get anything done. Most labs have been forced to hire inventory personnel in an attempt to stay "legal", which takes away from money that should be spent doing research and curing disease.

    73. Re:Terror is winning by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      That's why we have a legal system and don't just leave justice up to the police.

      If only the "legal system" (with its elected officials) wasn't actually a bigger problem than the police. Most of them will want to look tough on crime to get re-elected, and won't get truth in the way of "justice".
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    74. Re:Terror is winning by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      So now, dude's wife dies and they shake him down for 22 hours and try to nail him for terrorism. Seems to me that he's got a lot more ammo for a lawsuit.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    75. Re:Terror is winning by eli+pabst · · Score: 1

      First ATCC has said that they don't think they were defrauded and have no interesting in pursuing any kind of litigation. Second Kurtz got the bacteria from ATCC specifically because it was well characterized and because it was *THE SAFEST* thing he could use to do this exhibit. He could have easily cultured bacteria from his mouth that would be *much* more dangerous than this organism was. This is about the prosecutor wanting to get somebody so that they don't have to walk away empty-handed.

    76. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they can't lose face now can they?

    77. Re:Terror is winning by TadMSTR · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA all he did was fill out a warranty card incorrectly. Thats what the DoJ is trying to call mail fraud.

      From TFA:
      "What they have been arguing in motion hearings is that the Department of Justice is making an absurd interpretation of the mail fraud law. The DoJ has thrown away its guidelines (which state my case should not be prosecuted) and interpreted the law in a way that is unique for my situation.

      My co-defendant Bob Ferrell and I are the first citizens to ever be indicted for mail or wire fraud because we supposedly broke a material transfer agreement. The "defrauded" parties do not believe we did anything to harm them -- the crime is a DoJ fantasy that they hope to prove. We'll see at trial if rationality prevails.

      If it doesn't, the case will set a precedent that will mean that the Justice Department can drop a major felony on someone for filling out a warranty card incorrectly and mailing it. This will be a major tool for them. Talk about being able to pick off people at will!"

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
    78. Re:Terror is winning by gosand · · Score: 3, Informative
      Unless they say you're a 'terrah' suspect and ship you off to guantanamo bay without any kind of trial.


      And leave you there. From Wikipedia: "Since the Afghanistan war 775 detainees who have been brought to Guantanamo, approximately 420 have been released. As of August 09, 2007, approximately 355 detainees remained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. More than a fifth have been cleared for release but may have to wait months or years for their freedom because U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to line up places to send them, according to Bush administration officials and defense lawyers. Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest."

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    79. Re:Terror is winning by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Right. Someone with some kind of culture can't be a good guy. It's downright un-American.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    80. Re:Terror is winning by Lars+T. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not saying any of these men are innocent -- just that they deserve due process under the law like any other citizen, regardless their religion or hairstyle. As do all the others in Gitmo, for that matter - even if they aren't citizens of the USA.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    81. Re:Terror is winning by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. They mistook his disabled chemical weapons for... chemical weapons. I agree that people scare stupidly easily (see: boston) but this isn't a good example. These *really did* look just like the weapons they thought they were. Correction. they mistook his lab equipment and possibly some books about chemical weapons for chemical weapons. The were paramedics, not trained weapons inspectors.

      Using a tiny little bit of logic, don't you think that if someone were actually attempting to make a substance that could be weaponized, they might take precautions of not having the equipment in plain sight? Even an organisation as pathetically ineffective as Al Quieda would think of what might happen should someone see something out of the ordinary.

      Whats next? A plumber gets called out to fix a flood in a basement, and sees a vaguely oriental looking customer has a lot of computer gear in the house, so thinks he has cracked a Chinese cyber warfare ring?
      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    82. Re:Terror is winning by jackspenn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Umm, those people were not picked up by the police in our country. They were picked up by our military overseas, many times in combat circumstances.

      You do recognize that under your logic (or lack there of), every German officer, soldier and spy picked up during WWII, could not be held, without first being read their rights, shipped to the US, and then having before a Judge and been convicted of fighting in the German army.

      When you consider to hold the trial, we would obviously had to ship back US, British or French fighters to testify (and thus hurt our war effort) and you also consider that the capture happened in a war zone where defense lawyers could argue that destruction of evidence prevents a fair trial; well, then you would recognize how illogical your comment and the views that produced it are.

      You should be aware that your argument lacks any Constitutional foundation. The Constitution states very clearly the Judicial branch doesn't deal in foreign matters or things that happen outside the US. The Constitution puts that power largely in the Executive and to some extent the Legislative branches, but clearly says the Judical has no power in this area.

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    83. Re:Terror is winning by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      Talk about a myopic view of what's happened over the last seven years. Given the Real ID Act, all the RICO laws, all the drug enforcement laws, and tack on all the post 9/11 legislation and you have yourself a bona fide police state. I am no longer protected from illegal searches and seizures, I can be stripped of my citizenship and shipped off to remote place with little to no hope of ever getting a lawyer, let alone a trial.

      The fact of the matter is that Congress has forgotten what the constitution means and the Executive branch became two branches of government without any referendum to approve this change. The constitution applies to the government, it's irrelavent where I am, where you are, where anybody is, the U.S. government is bound by the constitution.

      Of course over the last seven years what remained of the constitution and more specifically the bill of rights is gone. Last I checked the only right that remained was that we were still free from the burden of having to house soldiers. Habeas Corpus has been suspended indefinitely, the rights of the press have been trampled to high hell on numerous occasions. Link one, link two, and link three, are all just a couple of examples of hundreds of instances of censorship. Combined that with National Security letters forcing some U.S. citizens to give up their customers and thus their livelihood without any compensation or recourse.

      We have definitely lost significant freedoms, you notice them when you open a bank account, you'll notice them in hospitals and fingerprints are now required all over the place.

      You can use all the racial slurs you like, people will hate you but you won't be thrown in jail because of it. It's the fact that the majority don't notice the loss of protections that scares me. The people that can't put all the pieces together because they are either too lazy or too absorbed with their own lives to realize what's going on around them. We are most definitely not safer now than we were and there are strong arguments out there that we are even worse off for a creative criminal. Do you really think a terrorist would target a plane again? They would target something new where we don't have high security because we don't have high security on it. The only thing the security is doing for airlines is bankrupting them because people hate to go to airports. Then of course the airlines try to cut back on costs by reducing services making the flights even more unpleasant and then the government has to bail them out because so much business relies on flight transportation.

      An investor for the company I work for actually rented and flew his own plane because U.S. Air was so incompetent they overbooked his flight twice so he couldn't fly down here for a time sensitive meeting. Combine that with my boss wanting to go to the lake for the weekend so he was going to fly there, it was about a 45 minute flight. After three engine failures resulting in delays he hopped in one of his cars and just drove the two hours or less.

      In short, the constitution including the Bill of Rights is being used as TP by the administration and congress and no one is willing to do anything about it. I'd like to say election time will correct the misgivings of the past but given that both democrats and republicans share the blame for the erosion of our liberties there is very little hope we will get any of it back anytime soon. Perhaps when the baby boomers are out of office the next generation will have the good sense to improve things. We'll see, awareness of the problems is where it all begins.

      I sincerely hope more realize what's going on in the world around them. Religion has been driven out of the federal level, it is resurgent at the local level, that is perfectly legal so as long as I get to vote on it I

    84. Re:Terror is winning by orasio · · Score: 1

      Yes. And they were different before as well. Adopting the third world practice of making people dissappear is not helping things but thankfully that's still the spooks plus Edgar Hoover's crowd and not professional law enforcement. The CIA says now, in their unclassified records, that they had a role in Plan Condor, the framework where people got "dissapeared" in south america, and tortured to death. The harshest torture techniques used in my country where taught mostly by a comissioned US police guy, who was later killed. They were amazingly similar than what you saw happening in iraq.

      They are not adopting third world techniques. Those are _their_ techniques. They are just using them closer to home.
    85. Re:Terror is winning by Venik · · Score: 1

      What is happening in Myanmar? What is Myanmar?

    86. Re:Terror is winning by j-min · · Score: 0

      He should take it as a compliment that his art project worked well enough to fool the police.

      22 hours detainment and having his neighborhood blocked off?

      Funny, yes. Compliment? Not so much.

    87. Re:Terror is winning by Venik · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as "culture of law enforcement". There are professionals who come to work every day and do their jobs. And then there are losers who bend and break the rules to take out their insecurities on others.

      You might have seen this around the office: two guys writing code and ten more people make up schedules, set deadlines, hold endless telecons and meetings, and generally make everyone's life miserable without contributing anything to the process.

      Law enforcement is no that much more different: two guys are following the rules and catching crooks, and ten guys are writing tickets, stuffing their faces at a local donut shop, and talk about the "culture of law enforcement."

    88. Re:Terror is winning by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "That's why we have a legal system and don't just leave justice up to the police."

      But, the police are the first line you encounter with 'the justice system'. They have the discretion of arresting you, warning you, or just letting you go if they find nothing wrong.

      The trouble is...if they stop you or you are investigated these days....EVEN if they are mistaken, they now seem to assume they have to take you and and charge you with "something" whether it sticks or not, and now YOU have to take time, and often a good deal of $$$ these days, to go defend yourself.

      This didn't really seem to be the way years ago. In the past, I've been let off for minor traffic offenses...especially as a teen. Going a little fast? "Slow it down son", and I was let off with a warning. Hell, once I'd have a few drinks...had some Taco Bell in the car and was heading home. Cop pulled me over....asked if I'd been drinking..I said no...the said don't lie to me, so I told him yes, I'd been to a party, and realized I'd not eaten, so I left, got food and was going home...and I was only blocks away from home. He asked my friend with me if he was ok to drive (actually he was maybe a bit worse than I), he saw on my license I was close to home, and told him to drive us home, and if he saw me out again that night...I was going to jail. We went straight home.

      You think that would happen today???? No..they HAVE to charge you with something if they take the 'time' out of their shift to pull you over or question you. The previous example IS extreme I'll grant you, but, I'm just telling an extreme one to illustrate how lenient cops would be back in the past if you weren't really doing anything bad (rape, robbery, etc). And no, back 15-20 years ago...driving with a few drinks wasn't the uber-crime it is today...drunk driving, yes, but, they didn't do random roadblocks, and you didn't get pulled over unless you were weaving badly...or speeding (which I did to get through a yellow light at that time).

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    89. Re:Terror is winning by butlerdi · · Score: 1

      Stumbled on this looking at the article ... http://www.disappearedinamerica.org/

      --
      "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
    90. Re:Terror is winning by ekimminau · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      People who try to kill hundreds, thousands or millions of people through acts of terrorism "should" be shot in the forehead immediatly if not sooner. For the privledge of being allowed to live a while longer so that we may extract whatever additional information we believe may be valuable, they give up the rights they lost when we should have wasted a slug on them. Their due process is the right to continue to breathe as long as we deem it is necessary.

      --
      Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
    91. Re:Terror is winning by evil_aar0n · · Score: 1

      Somewhat like last week's MIT girl and her "bomb sweatshirt."

      --
      Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
    92. Re:Terror is winning by Unordained · · Score: 1

      But perhaps you think that journalists who smuggle guns on airplanes and then reveal the flaws in airport security to the public should be thrown in jail as well. If intentions don't count, then every tank truck driver carrying hazardous substances who has an accident should be prosecuted as a terrorist.

      a) If the journalist is caught in the act (though later than expected, after a flaw has obviously been uncovered worth documenting,) or even just because the article is read by a cop somewhere (we arrest people long after they've committed murder, right?) he should still be arrested and thrown in jail if a law has been broken. There's a process, and it doesn't end just because you're a journalist. Anyone can be a journalist, which is a great thing, but we can't just give out get-out-of-jail-free cards to everyone. It's unfortunate that many laws can't be challenged unless someone actually breaks the existing law, then gets a judge to throw the law out rather than put the citizen in jail, but that's another example of the same process. Civil disobedience is great, but it's still punishable by law, at least in the short term. Hacking into a secure network, if it violates laws, is still a violation of the law -- you can argue all day that they should be thankful you told them about it, or revealed a flaw with no intention of exploiting it, but until the harmed party makes that determination, or the due process of law decides to throw the case out ... you have to suffer for what you think is right. If that means rotting in jail until the system is fixed, then you should proudly do so. It's just part of your duty as a citizen, no?

      If you suspect a hole, however, I might suggest first going to the entity in question, asking for an interview with the higher-ups, ask them for permission to secretly attack their system under only semi-controlled conditions (as in you'll be rescued when security comes to beat you up, but they won't inform them ahead of time or prevent you from doing anything or in any way tamper with the system), for everyone's mutual benefit. If they agree ... great. If they disagree, that might be worth publishing, telling everyone what you *think* might work, and disgrace them for not caring enough. But maybe that's just being petty.

      b) What you're initially accused/charged with and what you get convicted of are different things. Seems like it's easier to downgrade charges during a trial than to upgrade them, so you start with the worst possible thing, then drop charges as you go. The government, when acting on our behalf in court (as we're all considered injured parties when public lands, etc. are involved), is obligated to fight "for us" to the fullest extent possible. It's part of the adversarial system. That's why we also have a judge and jury. Besides, the more ridiculous the claim (terrorist truck driver!) the easier it will be to disprove culpability. It's really in their best interest, if they want a conviction at all, to go for the most reasonable claim and make it stick -- "you weren't paying attention when you should have been, and are required to try to do, by law".

    93. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      He could have used flourescine powder not real bacteria and just as effective a demonstration.

      No, the fact that they are live makes a difference in an art piece. This isn't a science museum. The funny thing about your post, is that he could have used wild bacteria, which would have been more dangerous, but not illegal.

    94. Re:Terror is winning by StarRoamer · · Score: 1

      According to the Immigration and Nationalization Act (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558dbe):

      ------
      INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

      Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

      (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

      ------

      Being born in the USA is not a *requirement*, but it sounds like it is *sufficient*.
      IANAL.

    95. Re:Terror is winning by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      But perhaps you think that journalists who smuggle guns on airplanes and then reveal the flaws in airport security to the public should be thrown in jail as well.

      Haa haa! No, officer, I'm not trying to smuggle a crate of plutonium to a terrorest cell, I'm just a journalist testing your security. Haa haa! See, no problem at all. Haa haa! You didn't happen to read my article about how evil Americans are, and how they should all be killed with nuclear bombs, did you? See, ligitimate journalist, not a terrorist! Haa haa!

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    96. Re:Terror is winning by pohl · · Score: 1
      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    97. Re:Terror is winning by sjames · · Score: 1

      From their point of view he could have ordered any bug.

      I walked into the bank the other day. From the guard's point of view, I might have done anything, even pulled out a gun and robbed the place. Of course, I had no gun and what I really did was deposit my paycheck.

      From a purely practical standpoint, if we're going to have a society where looking like you might be committing a crime is the same as actually doing it, we're going to have to start teaching everyone how to commit all of the crimes, including build an atomic bomb and make chemical and biological weapons so they will be able to know when what they're really doing might look like one of those.

      Yes, he was staging a re-enactment of a bio-warfare experiment. A bio-warfare experiment that failed miserably. That in itself should indicate the lack of intent to harm people.

      There are just way too many things that could become a problem for people if we're going to let law enforcement go nuts everytime someone sees "scary scientific stuff" on someone's table. For example, if I even have to think twice before I culture a swab from my own mouth (or from my garden soil), I don't live in a free country.

      In this particular case, since they managed to find a crapload of bioprotection suits and people to stuff into them, surely they could find one expert to actually identify the cultures quickly.

      Plus, he ordered two bugs he thought were harmless and then by his own admission "turns out one is not so harmless and can cause pbuemonia".

      I can't seem to find a single reference to that anywhere. where was it?

      Further, anyone can grow a culture of a germ that can make people sick. Just wait till you get an infection, swab it onto a suitable culture medium and incubate. A little less sure but likely to work, just swab your skin any old time and culture that. Odds are there's something there that COULD make someone sick.

      Perhaps we should charge people who go to work when they're sick with bioterrorism too?

      The even bigger problem is what I call "the consolation prize". The repeating pattern is a bunch of feds panic and massively overreact to "scary scientific stuff" or an improvised litebrite. Once the dust settles from their wanton destruction of private property (which they call a search) and their fears prove baseless, they trump up some nonsense crime to charge the victem with as a consolation prize.

      That practice appears to be a combination of a cynical attempt to dodge liability for their destructiveness and a way to thump their chests and shout (perhaps in a squeeky voice) "we are NOT little girley-men!" (REALLY!).

      IMHO, all it really says is that they're also petulant little brats on a power trip and that not one of them listened in kindergarden when the teacher told them that you should say you're sorry when you make a mistake and hurt someone.

    98. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you're advocating the assassination of the president?

    99. Re:Terror is winning by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, power without ethics is tyranny.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    100. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "That's why we have a legal system and don't just leave justice up to the police."

      Spoken like someone who has very limited experience in the court system. You make it sound like the justice system is independent of the police; it should be, but it surely isn't.

      The federal system is considerably better than the state system. State governments are worse. In fact, in MANY areas of the country, there is an overwhelming pro-prosecution mentality. Prosecutors are voted in, they have a career interest in going gung-ho as much as possible, and they are rewarded by keeping their office, getting elected to be the state or county attorny (high levels of government), or becoming judges. It seems to me several high profile cases that have gone really wrong all started largely with overzealous DAs (Jena6, Duke rape case) going for political votes (Jena being largely white, Duke the prosecutor was up for re-election with a largely black voting population).

      Why is this relevant to police? Because if you back the cop, you get more convictions, you keep your position. And if you need a favor getting your political ambition on, nothing like a call to the FOP to get the word out. Further, it influences outcomes; in many areas of the country, it's literally fixed. You get a "district" hearing where the officer often goes into the room prior to the hearing to have a chat with the magistrate. You get found guilty there, so you appeal, but all that does is alert the country level judge (who usually is a senior judge aka supposed to be retired) of the previous outcome (as opposed to getting rid of the biased lower court system entirely).

      Not to mention, judgeships have a direct vested interest in finding people guilty, since it again rolls back to them, justifies their "office," and even bankrolls everything. It's been amazing to me watching the past 10 years how many times I've seen areas that hit a budget crisis turn up the police heat (generates fines; other tactics are taken too, like using eminant domain, which again, circles back to contesting said takeovers through a flawed system). State budget shortfall? Fines go up and they hire more police.

      And there is usually NO check on state judges by the state legislature (supposed to be in a checks and balances system), and even efforts to legislatively force mandatory retirement is circumvented by the incoming, younger judges, since they aren't re-elected but often simply retained. (And the older judge is around to handle mundane cases like traffic court (aka drum "guilty" courts) or when younger judge needs someone to take up the slack for their extended vacation.)

      Further, this also tends to make common voting public, which the justice system is supposed to be above, feel better. How often have we seen justification of going after everyone gung-ho is because of one clear cut case where the full brunt of the justice system should come down on someone. It makes voters feel better that "it's not them" and that "they're better than that (alleged) criminal."

    101. Re:Terror is winning by laughing+rabbit · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is a good thing that it is becoming an uber-crime when you look at this. http://www.madd.org/stats/1298

      --
      No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
      Vote them out every term.
    102. Re:Terror is winning by WNight · · Score: 1

      You gave them the right by being born here and not immediately decided to go found your own country somewhere else. :)

    103. Re:Terror is winning by Goldarn · · Score: 1

      Read the treaties we've signed governing warfare, and get back to us, when you can admit how utterly wrong you are.

      You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

      And also check here for information about the effect of treaties on our laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution

    104. Re:Terror is winning by WNight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do know that few of the Guantanamo prisoners were captured in combat (or even near it). Most of them were turned in by their countrymen for bribes.

      Now, think about who you'd turn in for money. The actual freedom fighter who could strike back at the imperialist pigs, or the annoying guy down the block who plays his stereo too loud and threatened you for calling the cops?

      If these really were combatants, it would be cut and dried. They'd go home when the fighting ends. But they aren't, and often there never was fighting near them. Some detainees are Pakistan and were picked up there. Either the USA followed them a long way home with a drone from Afghanistan, or they weren't actively fighting.

    105. Re:Terror is winning by WNight · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you live under the shadow of the most oppressive dictatorship the world has seen and the USA is pissing away whatever ability it might have had to help. Oh, sorry, I mean that China really loves you and has your best interests at heart. Come home to your brothers!

      Perhaps we should just get together and buy a chunk of Canada the size of Taiwan?

    106. Re:Terror is winning by Frantactical+Fruke · · Score: 1
      Having to spend months or years of your life and money defending yourself against charges that are obviously ridiculous from the outset is punishment by itself. What did the man who found the Atlanta Olympics bomb learn from his experience? "Next time I see something suspicious, I'll look the other way." If I ever see something that looks like a bomb, will I report it and risk being suspected of setting it myself? I don't know. There are nicer places to spend your life than courtrooms and jails.

      Mind, for Mr. Kurtz this is just brilliant publicity. As I googled for him, one link spoke of his superior anti-Bush credentials...

      http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/16146/

    107. Re:Terror is winning by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Well said. These "the sky are falling" types are really starting to get annoying. You'd think that after a few hundred years of being consistently wrong, they'd give up already.

    108. Re:Terror is winning by sheldon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So by your definition, what is happening in Myanmar isn't considered terrorism because your definition only applies to the US? I guess US law enforcement over reacting and charging someone with a crime, who will get a day in court, is worse than when a known totalitarian regime actively kills people in public.


      I think you miss the point.

      What is happening in Myanmar is a pure violation of human rights. The authorities of Myanmar are also arguing... "Well, they wouldn't have gotten shot if they had not made such a ruckus in public." There are always excuses for tyranny.

      I don't understand why there are asshats in the US who excuse away problems with our system by pointing to countries like Myanmar and saying "See, over there it's worse." But then, the Soviets used to do the same thing. As I said, tyranny can always find an excuse.
    109. Re:Terror is winning by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You think that would happen today???? No..they HAVE to charge you with something if they take the 'time' out of their shift to pull you over or question you.
      You're smoking crack. I've had a few run-ins with cops in recent years, including an incident just this past June in New York state. The officers I interacted with were professional, courteous, and none had any interest in charging me or anyone else involved, despite the fact that they would have been completely within their rights to do so.
    110. Re:Terror is winning by funkyloki · · Score: 1

      Myanmar is another name for Burma, a country in Asia. We still call it Burma here in the US because our government refuses to recognize them as Myanmar.

      --
      Scientists now say the future will be far more futuristic than originally believed
    111. Re:Terror is winning by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      No. Law enforcement is considerably more clannish. This clannish-ness is inversely proportional to how young you were when you became a cop. Cops that didn't originally start out that way tend to be remarkably more level headed.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    112. Re:Terror is winning by steveaustin1971 · · Score: 0

      You obviously have had little contact with the police. Once anyone cop in your local department decides they don't like you, EVERY cop is your enemy.

    113. Re:Terror is winning by polymath69 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also because Myanmar-Shave just sounds silly.

      --

      --
      I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
    114. Re:Terror is winning by sheldon · · Score: 1

      Umm, those people were not picked up by the police in our country. They were picked up by our military overseas, many times in combat circumstances.


      I'm sure he was thinking of Jose Padilla. I don't recall him going to Gitmo, but he was held indefinately for several years, and when he was finally tried and convicted it was on charges unrelated to what they had initially claimed he did.

      You do recognize that under your logic (or lack there of), every German officer, soldier and spy picked up during WWII, could not be held, without first being read their rights, shipped to the US, and then having before a Judge and been convicted of fighting in the German army.


      German POWs were held in camps here in the continental United States. They were treated so well that after the war many of them out of gratitude choose to stay here in the US rather than go home.

      You should be aware that your argument lacks any Constitutional foundation. The Constitution states very clearly the Judicial branch doesn't deal in foreign matters or things that happen outside the US. The Constitution puts that power largely in the Executive and to some extent the Legislative branches, but clearly says the Judical has no power in this area.


      Perhaps you could provide us a quotation from the Constitution?

      It's bed wetters like you who have caused this nation so much grief.
    115. Re:Terror is winning by funkyloki · · Score: 1

      Fatherland == Homeland. That's what we like to call it here, and so did the Nazis in Germany. Scary similarity I think, but most Americans aren't even aware of it I believe.

      --
      Scientists now say the future will be far more futuristic than originally believed
    116. Re:Terror is winning by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It really tells you something. Despite all of the whining and bitching about the place, it seems that most of the people there are not people that are even wanted back.

      That's in stark contrast to a real POW.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    117. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, drunk drivers that haven't actually hit anyone shouldn't
      have any consequences?

    118. Re:Terror is winning by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      ...probably depends on how likely they think it is that you're the governors son.

      "Walking while scruffy" can be as big of a problem as "walking while black" in some
      areas. The inner city cops also tend to be much more uptight. Mebbe they're suffering
      from shell shock or something.

      Whereas the suburban guys are just suffering from boredom.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    119. Re:Terror is winning by funkyloki · · Score: 1

      Actually, Jose Padilla was a Brooklyn-born citizen of the US and was held in Gitmo for three years before being tried and convicted of aiding terrorism.

      --
      Scientists now say the future will be far more futuristic than originally believed
    120. Re:Terror is winning by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      He should take it as a compliment that his art project worked well enough to fool the police. Is that the same police that sees a home-made light-up name tag and thinks "OMG A BOMB!"? Or sees a lite-bright mooninite and thinks "OMG A BOMB!"?

      Because, I wouldn't take it as a compliment if they saw anything I made and thought "OMG A BOMB!", apparently to these people, if it's home-made, it's a bomb.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    121. Re:Terror is winning by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Not even close.

      60K people per year still die from pnuemonia. It is nothing to trivialize.

      It's this kind of sloppy thinking that makes the mail fraud case seem more reasonable. People like you should not be allowed to play with biological research materials.

      Pnuemonia, like most diseases, tend to pick off the weak. So it will be someone's baby or someone's grandma that dies over something like this. They might not even need to be in the performance art venue.

      The "low infection rates" mentality overlooks the fact the infection rate doesn't need to be very high for people to DIE from it.

      Notoriously difficult to get diseases can wipe out whole continents.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    122. Re:Terror is winning by gosand · · Score: 1

      I find it a little sad that THAT is what sunk in out of those sentences.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    123. Re:Terror is winning by Venik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I appreciate the education, but what I was really trying to say was: who cares? I really don't understand what this noise is all about. Suddenly, BBC and CNN became deeply concerned with the state of civil liberties in Burma. Like Burma wasn't a military dictatorship for the past forty five years.

      Americans and Brits are up to their balls in trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan. But all I see in the news is Myanmar and Sudan. Seems like somebody is trying to shift public attention in the US and the UK from the quagmire in Iraq to some monks in Burma.

    124. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does "looking for something to pin on someone you think is guilty" become "making people dissappear(sic)" exactly?

      Ummm, I think jail pretty much covers it.

    125. Re:Terror is winning by funkyloki · · Score: 2

      I don't think it's so much that. I am glad they "investigated" him to make sure he did or did NOT have WMDs or chemical warfare ingredients. However, the argument is, now that they learned that what he had was harmless, they are continuing to try to pin something on him in order to not look "stupid" or to lose face. That is the real problem here.

      --
      Scientists now say the future will be far more futuristic than originally believed
    126. Re:Terror is winning by phiwum · · Score: 1

      "There are relatively few days when we really notice the changes affecting us personally."

      Lack of empathy among the governed is the greatest boon to those with dictatorial ambitions.


      I don't know how you got the impression that I thought recent changes are acceptable or that I don't care about those affected negatively by the increased emphasis of security over civil rights.

      I'll say it again: the current situation is very troubling. We should certainly be aware of the recent changes and encourage discussion. But I don't see any reason that hyperbole helps this purpose—things are troubling, but the Bill of Rights has not been repealed.

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    127. Re:Terror is winning by JBHarris · · Score: 1

      You gave them the right by being born here and not immediately decided to go found your own country somewhere else. :)
      You gave them that right by electing them.
    128. Re:Terror is winning by funkyloki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was being a little sarcastic, but you are correct. The media in this country loves "shock and awe" so whenever ANYTHING happens ANYWHERE that involves violence, we are subjected to it in all forms, be it TV, print, internet. But only for a limited time, then they move on to some other new violence, and we "forget" all about the other incidents. It is a sad state of affairs that a small group of people own almost all of the media outlets in this country and are operating for profit. If some news item is deemed as affecting the bottom line, or goes against the core beliefs of the "man" in charge, we may never see it. For example, WTF ever happened to the miners trapped in Utah. Another, how come it took a year before real coverage of Jena Six started popping up. Just my .02.

      --
      Scientists now say the future will be far more futuristic than originally believed
    129. Re:Terror is winning by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I'd be happy to give one my loft rent free for a year, as long as I get 50% of his book deal ;).

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    130. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyplace where their elected officials can beat each other up while their congress is in session has awesome written all over it.

      Imagine if the House of Reps could do that in the US... It'd be one sweet reality/sports show on C-SPAN!

    131. Re:Terror is winning by butlerdi · · Score: 1

      If you think this is bad what about one of their own ....

      A 62 year old researcher who reported missing vials and ended up getting reamed by the same sort of asshats. Here's a great link from the Federation of American Scientists. http://www.fas.org/butler/ The Butler case makes this look good. When are you folks gonna get off your asses and set it straight again ... at least minimize this bullshit.

      This case is also old but the poor guy only recently got out of jail. Bankrupt, jobless and lost medical liscense. All over technicalities in paperwork and contract disputes (previously civil matters).

      Here is a letter written by collegues that say all that he had done was SOP http://www.fas.org/butler/letter0305.pdf

      All I know is that I sure as hell will not be going to the ol USA for anyconferences or anything for a long long time, and most of my collegues feel the same.
      --
      "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
    132. Re:Terror is winning by Imazalil · · Score: 1

      Admittedly I am pulling this out of my ass, trying to remember bits and pieces from various news sources.

      Yes Burma hasn't had the best government for a good long time, but for most of it the people just 'put up with it'. The reason it's making news now is because there are mass protests across the country trying to get the government to reform, but the government is having none of it and has sent out the army. The last time this happened the army killed ~300 civilians, and currently there have been 2 to 6 reported civilian deaths so far.

      Do you remember Tiananmen Square? well this is pretty much the same thing, except it's round two already, and exponentially more people have already been killed.

      It shouldn't detract from the mess in your country or mine (Canada), but it is a major event.

    133. Re:Terror is winning by Espinas217 · · Score: 1

      Terror have already won on your land. You live with it, you create it everyday and your government use your terror to do whatever they can't do by other means. Sad but not much surprinsing.

      --
      La vida no es una pastafrola. :wq
    134. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at your own links, which of these POW categories do the detainees belong to?

              * "Members of the armed forces"
              * "militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
              * "Persons who accompany the armed forces"
              * "Members of crews...of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft"
              * "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

      That would be none, thus they are not covered by the Geneva convention any more than spies were historically - under the Geneva convention, shooting spies [those involved in fighting who do not wear a uniform] is perfectly acceptable.

    135. Re:Terror is winning by davetd02 · · Score: 1

      No, he violated the "Material Transfer Agreement." This case had nothing to do with a warranty card. From your quotes from the TFA "the case will set a precedent that will mean that the Justice Department can drop a major felony on someone for filling out a warranty card incorrectly."

      He is comparing his situation to that of a warranty card. He admits that he obtained the material by improper means. It's a question for reasonable debate whether that's fraud or not, but he does not claim that he's being prosecuted for a warranty card.

      If you RTFA all he did was fill out a warranty card incorrectly.

    136. Re:Terror is winning by japhmi · · Score: 1

      But perhaps you think that journalists who smuggle guns on airplanes and then reveal the flaws in airport security to the public should be thrown in jail as well.

      Yes. Smuggling guns on an airplane is illegal, and those who do it should be prosecuted, journalists or not.
      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    137. Re:Terror is winning by raddan · · Score: 1

      I sat there on 9/11, watching the news and crying. Crying for the innocent people who were murdered, yes, but also crying for the end of freedom.

      Maybe I'm naive, but I call BS. On the evening of 9/11, my girlfriend and I sat and discussed the day's events with sadness and confusion. I remember her asking me, "Do you think we'll go to war?", and I clearly remember my response was "With whom?" How can you "go to war" against terrorists? Well, I was proven wrong. You can go to war against a terrorist organization: by exaggerating the enemy's size, by prosecuting any link, tenuous or not, and by outright fabrication. We've now seen all of this. And one of the reasons why we are still angry today is because: most of us didn't see this coming.

      I think differently about our government now. Maybe I was on the cusp of it anyway-- I was studying law, and I found the results of the 2000 election to be deeply disturbing. But this event changed the opinions of a lot of people, because for many of us, it was such an obvious use of deceit, and nearly every politican in the game at the time used it to their advantage.

    138. Re:Terror is winning by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1

      But this is a "fraud", not unlawful use of hazardous biological materials

      Actually, I'm having trouble figuring out exactly _what_ the fraud was. There is a mention of filling out a warranty card incorrectly, but it's only used as an example of how preposterous the charge is. There is also a mention that he broke the terms of the contract, which _could_ mean something like he agreed to use the bacteria in a lab at the University for certain purposes, and is instead using them in his home for completely different purposes. If that were the case, I think it's significantly more serious than making a mistake filling out information. So, I'm looking forward to a little more information to form an opinion on whether the mail and wire fraud charges are just childish reactions, or really have some merit. Do you have any more information?
      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    139. Re:Terror is winning by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Being born in the USA is not a requirement for American citizenship."

      Unfortunately....NOT having at least one US citizen for a parent isn't required either...

      :-)

      Sure would help keep people from running across the border pregnant, to 'drop' one on our soil and have it automagically become a US citizen...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    140. Re:Terror is winning by garyrich · · Score: 1

      "Cops everywhere work on the premise that you're either a "good guy" or you're a "scumbag". "

      Or as I've gotten it directly from a member of LAPD - "There are three kinds of people, cops, perps and perps that haven't been caught yet".

      --
      -- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
    141. Re:Terror is winning by Sciros · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wrong. Power without ethics is power without ethics. It may become despotism or a number of things, but it is NOT terrorism and to define terrorism in such broad (besides inaccurate) terms is to make terrorism seem less heinous and more common than it is. It also makes me question whether you are trying to get some political agenda across with such statements. There exist [many] unethical leaders who are not terrorists.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    142. Re:Terror is winning by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      That's funny. What you describe as "try[ing] to kill hundreds, thousands or millions of people through acts of terrorism" could equally be described for many of the people in detention for just that as "arming themselves and defending themselves and their families, friends, and neighbours, their home, against the acts of a foreign invading army". I'm guessing they were apparently guilty of not surrendering to the "shock and awe" of the US military.

    143. Re:Terror is winning by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      There's a lady with a book out now with the premise that those in power take advantage of public shock (911, Katrina) to get away with stuff they wouldn't otherwise (Patriot Act, changing entire economies).

    144. Re:Terror is winning by evought · · Score: 1

      You gave them the right by being born here and not immediately decided to go found your own country somewhere else. :)
      You gave them that right by electing them.

      People born here never have a chance to accept or reject the rules allowing them to be elected short of abandoning home, family, and property.

      Obviously, power must be transferred to the government in some form in order to protect the rights of individuals against the tyranny of mob and of the majority against the tyranny of specific individuals (as well as to respond to specific circumstances affecting the whole of the citizenry). It's the whole "Government derives its power from the just consent of the governed" thing. However, that does not mean that any particular form is ideal, or that parents may ethically commit their children and children's children to that particular form. This was one of the major arguments used during the "Enlightenment" against monarchy.

      Practically, we have little choice to do just that in the majority of cases. The best we can do is provisions for our children to change the government they have been given. Missouri, for instance, must have a constitutional convention on a regular basis as required by law. Also practically, however, one of the changes that can be made is for a minority to legally or practically make it impossible for citizens to make those changes and thus deprive them from making the ethical choice of how they are governed. Lastly, of course, we don't have any real means (other than our feet) of choosing a different government than our neighbors.

      The bottom line is that the whole "we elected them" idea is nice and all, but there are many practical obstacles to electing a government of your choice, and the argument flatly fails against someone who voted against those currently in power. Our current party system where both major parties are strongly tied to corporate interests and independents are locked out of many political mechanisms is a good example. Another is the fact that much of the current problem involves a run-away executive and many appointed officials. There are perhaps ways within the system to fix these problems (and I hope to see people use them in the next few years), but just saying "your fault," is a cop out.

    145. Re:Terror is winning by mcflaherty · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is a good thing that it is becoming an uber-crime when you look at this. http://www.madd.org/stats/1298

      Keep in mind that MADD inflates the numbers with a nutty classification scheme. Sober driver, drunk passenger? That's an alcohol related accident. Drunk pedestrian walks in front of sober driver? Alcohol related accident. Driver with one drink gets into their parked car, gets sideswiped by a sober driver? Alcohol related accident.

      MADD inflates numbers

      --
      -- I am become sig, destroyer of posts.
    146. Re:Terror is winning by phiwum · · Score: 1

      No.

      One might argue that having to show ID at the airport is a whittling away of our civil rights (or maybe not — I'm not expressing an opinion on that). If so, it is a very minor infringement compared to, say losing Habeas Corpus. (Arguably, Habeas is in trouble too, mind you, but not for American citizens. And *yes* we should be very concerned about that.)

      All I'm saying is that the situation now is troubling, indeed, very troubling. But no, Liberty has not become a mockery of itself. Let's complain or do something about those things that bother us, rather than use hyperbole to exaggerate our reasonable concerns.

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    147. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just hindsight thinking. Home-based biological-weapons labs could consist of anything, but the threat is real. What do you want them to do, wait until it's happened. The United States changed on 9/11, going off on your merry way pretending that there are no terrorists, or that if we change something we are doing they will leave us alone is just the kind of thinking that resulted in lax security and another, preventable, disaster.

      What you don't understand is that what we do(aid Israel, living in debauchery, our entertainment, our culture, etc) has absolutely nothing to do with their hatred for us. The fact is, just like the Nazis, their leaders have to give them someone to hate so it diverts them from their poverty-stricken existence. Just like the Nazis, they created an enemy that is "repressing" them and attempting to "take over the world", and they are teaching them from school age up to hate us and hate anyone who is not like them, does not believe like them, and so on. To those who have grown up after the Shah, they believe that America is Satan just as much as they believe that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. To suggest otherwise would be just as ridiculous as it would be to suggest that the sun will rise in the south and set in the north.

      Appeasement won't help either. If we pull out of Iraq, Israel, and leave the middle east entirely they will still hate us. We can give them money and they will hate us. We can leave them alone and they will hate us. If you think you can do something that will make them stop hating us you are wrong. The fact of the matter is, unless we become like them... a theocratic, radical, Islamic society where we stone women and children for not being dressed properly, cut off people's heads if they refuse our religion, and convert our entire world view to Islam, they will hate us. Given that fact, I don't really care if they hate us or not. I say check students wearing shirts that look like it could possibly be a bomb, they are stupid for doing such a thing in the first place. Check a scientist's home lab for bomb making equipment because he just may be the next Tim McVeigh. I'd rather be wrong than risk another 9/11 or worse.

    148. Re:Terror is winning by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I have a mostly negative opinion of law enforcement, but I thought I'd tell you a positive couple of encounters I had a few weeks ago.

      I was driving a new (to me) car through the Rockies and didn't know the taillights were both burned out. This is pretty dangerous on curvy mountain roads at night. Anyway, I got pulled over twice by cops who told me that my lights were burned out and I was speeding (stop #1) or ran a stop sign (stop #2) I smelled like alcohol, but was under the legal limit I think.

      I was blown away by the fact that both stops could have gone badly but neither did. The officers were polite, friendly, and honestly trying to keep a preventable accident from happening. It was a nice change for me.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    149. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This moron gets a score of 2 for asking stupid questions. Is the moderator awake? I dont expect you to know name of every country in the world but atleast ask "Where is Myanmar?" not "What is".

    150. Re:Terror is winning by misterhypno · · Score: 1

      "Mistaking an artist
      who works in full view of the public,
      whose work can be found in a minute's googling,
      who documents every step he takes,

      "for a terrorist
      who might be expected to make at least a token effort to keep his doings secret, no matter how inept he is,

      "is pretty idiotic."

      Ars Gratia Calaboose?

      Ars Brevis, Jailus Longus?

      One has to wonder...

    151. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't understand what this noise is all about. Suddenly, BBC and CNN became deeply concerned with the state of civil liberties in Burma. Like Burma wasn't a military dictatorship for the past forty five years.
      America claims that its foreign interventions are in the name of freedom and democracy, not in the name of American interests. And that means that America cannot pick and choose which human rights violations it takes an interest in. If America does not actively work to support the pro-democracy protestors in Burma, which has no oil, what will that tell the world about its reasons for invading Iraq?
    152. Re:Terror is winning by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      Don't even have to ship them to Gitmo...

      Declare them a flight risk and hold them incommunicado and in isolation until they 'confess'.

    153. Re:Terror is winning by Cstryon · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you grew up or how old you were. I understand what you are talking about where a cop doesn't do anything to you unless you are REALLY doing something BAD. But I think in some places it still works that way. I grew up just southwest of Phoenix. I'm 21 years old and just recently moved. When I was 17 ( Not too long ago :P ) My buddy and I stole some road signs. A cop was there, turned his lights on and started driving towards us. So we tried to drive away. My truck was slow so I pulled over, and the cops basically gave us a lecture, told us why those road signs need to stay there, told us to not do drugs, and stay in school. I really think it depends on the cop, or the cops beat. If I was a cop in Laveen AZ, I'd probably act the same way as this cop did, little crime, no harm done, " Go home kid". But if I was a cop in say, South Phoenix, I might not be so soft.

      --
      Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
    154. Re:Terror is winning by paanta · · Score: 1

      Every organization has a culture. From Wikipedia: "Organizational culture, or corporate culture, comprises the attitudes, experiences, beliefs and values of an organization. It has been defined as "the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization"

      I think it's pretty easy to suss out some common attitudes, beliefs and values of the law enforcement community. Most cops I've known have watched too many movies. They usually believe that they're somehow sacrificing a lot to be cops...doing a dangerous, thankless job. They frickin' revel in that idea and don't want to admit that they get more out of it (power, prestige, job security, self-righteousness, etc) than they put in...why else would they keep doing it? They believe in some sort of brotherhood of law enforcement. They're trained to see the world in black and white terms (although the good ones see through that BS). They think they're the only thing between good people and chaos. Even bad, lazy cops think these things. 'cause (duh) it's part of the culture of law enforcement.

      Cops ARE just regular people. They don't like to admit mistakes or be proven wrong. They've got problems with tunnel vision and group-think. Same as every group. Within their culture, you've got lazy donut eaters and go-getters. Just like within ANY culture you've got donut eaters and go-getters.

      The problem is, when say, Nabisco, starts having problems with group-think or can't admit mistakes, what's the worst that happens? You wind up with some bad Wheat Thins and consumers stop buying their crackers. When law enforcement has the same problem they start rounding up all the Japanese and putting them internment camps.

    155. Re:Terror is winning by paanta · · Score: 1

      p.s. Pardon the bad grammar. Singular vs. Plural nouns and all that. Long day.

    156. Re:Terror is winning by Venik · · Score: 1

      Well, they've been 'putting up with it' since the early sixties. That's when the military took control of Burma. That's almost half-a-century of the current government regime in Burma - not exactly news-worthy material.

      I think we are assuming too much when we say "most people". Did you count them personally? Because I didn't. And so I don't know if it's really "most people" or a couple thousand radicals led by a few religious nuts.

      What do we have in Burma: masses rising up against the oppressive regime, or local religious leaders planning a power grab? With monks leading the protests, I just don't know. Sounds like it might a little bit of both, actually.

    157. Re:Terror is winning by k1e0x · · Score: 1

      Yes, The Constitutions says "people" not "citizens", and its not a typo.. If we believe our rights come not from government but from god (or from nature) then all men from all countries have rights.. one of those rights is the right to a fair trial.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    158. Re:Terror is winning by k1e0x · · Score: 1

      Now days they would have searched your car for drugs if you told them you went to a "party". Even if you weren't drinking.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    159. Re:Terror is winning by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [reading definitions]

      Oh, I see. You meant this one:

      "3. a shower of anything: a hail of bullets."

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    160. Re:Terror is winning by Ajehals · · Score: 1

      Homeland == Heimatland
      Fatherland == Vaterland
      Motherland == Mutterland

      There is nothing sinister about these terms (well there can be if you start using them for state security organs) and they are fairly interchangeable, I certainly wouldn't assume that you were talking about Nazi's if you were talking about "Homeland". It is the actions of an organisation that are associated with its name, so maybe the similarity you see is based on some (the US can not be sensibly compared to Nazi Germany) action or association, as well as the name rather than just the name. As for naming conventions I still think that the UK manages to have the most 'pleasant' sounding ministry names, especially the Home Office, a name that can conjure up interesting mental imagery.

      Just because something at one time is subverted by an evil, or even just distasteful group shouldn't mean that its meaning cannot be restored to its original meaning. Saying that the level of nationalism in the US does appear to be a little concerning, but its something that seems more of a US sort of thing anyway. Its a shame when you lose parts of your heritage because some ultra-nationalist group uses it, see the cross of St. George and its use by the NDF and BNP as an example in England.

    161. Re:Terror is winning by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "You never see Jack Bauer go to the bathroom. That's because nothing escapes Jack Bauer."

      I believe he had to pee in a cup at the police station after he was pulled over while driving drunk.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    162. Re:Terror is winning by cc_pirate · · Score: 1


      You are very right... A republic just changes the way the managers of the people (i.e. the rich and powerful) have to work. Rather than being friends with the King, they have to bribe and promote and pay off their "legislators". The end result is the same.

      "A managed democracy is a wonderful thing, Manuel, for the managers... and its greatest strength is a 'free press' when 'free' is defined as 'responsible' and the managers decide what is 'irresponsible'." - R. Heinlein

      --

      "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur

    163. Re:Terror is winning by jackspenn · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thanks for the information, after reading about the Geneva Convention, it is clear that the detainees do not satisfy the requirements in the Geneva Convention.

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    164. Re:Terror is winning by Venik · · Score: 1

      So you think that Washington is being purely altruistic in supporting anti-government protesters in Burma. Well, that's one point of view. Another point of view is that, perhaps, the US is seeking a new foothold in the region for its ABM defense network or some other military installation.

      Just looking at Poland, Czech Republic, and the Republic of Georgia, it seems that American radars and missiles are following closely behind American democracy. Burma's location - right between India and China - seems to be strategically significant from a military perspective. It certainly would be a prime location for an ABM site.

      I am not saying the US has any specific plans for Burma. But I am saying that it's a possibility, considering how quickly this old issue of military rule in Burma took over the news and led veto talk at the UN. A group of monks unhappy with their government just can't set things like these into motion. It takes a little bit of help.

    165. Re:Terror is winning by mink · · Score: 1

      They can take my yogurt, assorted cheeses, sour cream and dough when they pry them from my cold fridge.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    166. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People captured in a combat zone pretty much *always* qualify, unless you're a member of the Bush Administration.

      And, if you think they don't qualify, you are required to hold a hearing to determine that. No hearings were held at the time they were arrested and removed from their home country.

    167. Re:Terror is winning by jackspenn · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      My point is this, regardless, the courts have no Constitution ground to get involved, the President has tremendous Constitutional power for war and the Congress has a tiny piece. So lets assume your claims are correct and you run to the courts; well my response has nothing to do with your claim, my response is "You are clearly in the wrong for the Constitution tells us that you are.", courts have no power to rule in this area. So shut up already, I have been hearing it for 5-6 years and you ftards are to ignorant to understand what the debate is about. It is not about should those people be there, it is about, who has the power to conduct wars in out nation. Since you don't have time to debate what to do when the enemy is storming the hill, they founders thought it insane to have Congress run wars. Since you do not want unelected people running the war, you do not want judges doing it, so what part of government is setup to have a single decision point with an elected official that is geared towards such a task? If you say "anybody but Bush, you are an idiot" if you say "Bush" you are an idiot, if you say "The President, even if I do not like the current President", you are a winner and smarter then the average /.er. The only way you could win this debate is if you found some text in the Constitution that says courts can do this (and no such text exists, if you get some college professor's interpretation of what the founders thought or sight some case law, you are an idiot. Has to be in the Constitution or one of its Amendments, if not there, then you have to look at Federal Law, but since it is there, the debate ends, Presidency has power, courts don't. Courts are intentionally weak, they cannot make law (yet they often try and do), they can tax (yet in one case a Judge reset a towns taxes), they cannot sight foreign laws (yet several of the S.C. Justices have done so), they cannot get involved here. I think if fascism does rise up in the US, it is unlikely to come from a public official who must get elected and is either a member of a larger body voting body or at best can serve 8 years. No, I believe fascism is more likely to come from unelected judges with lifelong appointments, who rule on their goals/beliefs, rather than on the law.

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    168. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think he meant "Heil".

    169. Re:Terror is winning by jackspenn · · Score: 0

      Constitutional foundation:

      Article II, Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments:
      The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States ... [unrelated, but recommend you read for yourself]

      Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795.
      The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

      Dude, I so totally won this debate.

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    170. Re:Terror is winning by Reziac · · Score: 1

      An AC remarks, 'Actually, I think he meant "Heil".'

      Likely so, but the homonym works just as well for this discussion :/

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    171. Re:Terror is winning by TadMSTR · · Score: 1

      Would you mind quoting where he admits to having obtained the material by improper means? I just can't seem to find it.

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
    172. Re:Terror is winning by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. You don't get exposure for that kind of art at all. If you want exposure, you take pictures of hundreds of nude people in a city centre. This kind of thing is only of interest to the avant-garde audience, which doesn't get any mainstream recognition at all.

      You're just spiteful because some people do things you don't understand, and the fact that you think it should be prohibited shows that you're a reactionary cunt (which is defined: people who want to put limits on freedom of expression). People like you deserve ... whatever. I just don't get why you would think that your obviously limited knowledge of art should determine the outcome of a mail fraud case.

    173. Re:Terror is winning by funkyloki · · Score: 1

      Or the swastika which is a very religious symbol in Buddhist religions, and meant good luck for 3,000 years, until the Third Reich used it as their symbol. And it is exactly said state security org I was referring to. I think the actions of that particular body will prove to be very nasty in time, and will bestow on the word Homeland what Fatherland is now in reference to Nazis and fascism. Most Americans I think did not use the word Homeland to describe their country. I know I never heard it used before 2001. Weird word to choose, and so Fatherland sounding, how could you not be weirded out by it.

      --
      Scientists now say the future will be far more futuristic than originally believed
    174. Re:Terror is winning by doktorjayd · · Score: 1

      alas,

      it appears 'the world' is too timid to ask our great and powerful friend about their reasons for invading ( indeed, if you live in australia, our great and powerful prime minister is still up to his eyeballs in love with gwb and anything he has to do or say, so any real analysis from government just will not happen.) :(

      and of course the american public themselves voted another 4 years of it in 2004.

    175. Re:Terror is winning by BlueTrin · · Score: 1

      Being a german officer during WW2 does not make you a nazi nor a war criminal, shooting enemy soldiers is hardly a war crime.

      Therefore they needed a trial to prove that they were involved in atrocities.

      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    176. Re:Terror is winning by somersault · · Score: 1

      Or, alternatively.. to cheer, salute, or greet; welcome.

      Sorry for not automatically talking in German when doing my fascist salutes, we all know that only the Germans are fascist *sighs and rolls eyes*

      --
      which is totally what she said
    177. Re:Terror is winning by JimFive · · Score: 1

      The trouble is...if they stop you or you are investigated these days....EVEN if they are mistaken, they now seem to assume they have to take you and and charge you with "something" whether it sticks or not, and now YOU have to take time, and often a good deal of $$$ these days, to go defend yourself.
      I wonder how much of that is an effort to protect themselves (the dept or city) against lawsuits for false arrest/harrassment. If they can charge you with something and get it into court they have a pretty solid defense against those lawsuits.

      --
      JimFive
      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    178. Re:Terror is winning by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      When the police think you have done something wrong, then come hell or high water they will try to find something they can charge you with.
      Welcome to the world of trail lawyers. If they charge you with something then you can't sue them for false arrest. Otherwise they could be bait for an ambulance chaser. Guys like Senator Edwards fits into this category. Only he made his money from made up liability that we now know was BS. Never the less he isn't required to give the money he took from companies back for his ill gotten gains. Check out his house sometime.

      What we need is a reform in law that prohibits charges like that. I'm sure mail fraud wasn't anywhere near the charges they originally considering. They should be required to drop the charges, admit their mistake and pay his attorney's fees.

      It is looking more and more like if you need help, don't call 911. They are here to hurt us. How terrible to do this to him after he just lost his wife. Where is the press, they should have this on the front page to show just how stupid the police department is. Maybe their budget can be adjusted way down next year unless they comply.

    179. Re:Terror is winning by sheldon · · Score: 1

      Dude, I so totally won this debate.


      It doesn't say what you think it says.

      You forgot the parts about Congress having to authorize wars, and ratify treaties.

      The three legs of govt have control over one another. That's a fact. That's why it is setup that way.

      This country is not a monarchy.
    180. Re:Terror is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot, please stop posting.

    181. Re:Terror is winning by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Maybe that hail of bullets came from a 21-gun salute. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    182. Re:Terror is winning by WNight · · Score: 1

      The president has no power here either. There's no war. These aren't POWs.

      The constitution clearly lists many things our government is not allowed to do, and they are doing these things.

      No arrest without due-process, no being compelled to testify against yourself, no unreasonable search and seizure. These don't say "... to USA citizens". These things are clearly illegal (as we the people gave our government limits) and yet our government is doing them.

      Six years of voting machines and you still think Bush is an elected president... Either way though, his actions are unconstitutional and he needs to be arrested.

    183. Re:Terror is winning by laughing+rabbit · · Score: 1

      I should have stated my point.

      Looking at the table, fatalities have decreased even though the number of cars on the road has increased. Could be safer cars, better enforcement, less drunks behind the wheel or less inflation of numbers. I just thought it interesting that the number had declined.

      --
      No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
      Vote them out every term.
    184. Re:Terror is winning by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Bush and CNN have trained you to be paranoiac. Why are you afraid to go out for an evening stroll. Get a medical prescription and if they find the vial of pills on you, you could be accused of carrying weapons of mass destruction. Each pill could blow up a building. We dont know how to ignite it, but it could, really, honestly, and imaginatively. I feel regret for what the professor was subjected to. His wife dies, and he is accused of being a terrorist. Shame.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    185. Re:Terror is winning by jackspenn · · Score: 1

      Umm, I was debating that people like you are wrong when they say courts should be able to hear cases on enemy combatants.

      You jump in and say "show me the part where the Constitution says courts cannot get involved".

      I do that, hense I won the debate.

      Then you come back with "Well there are parts of the Constitution that say other things". I am well aware of that, but the arguement/debate that was ongoing was "The President has the power to decide how to handle people captured in Afghanistan or if the courts have the ability to step it.

      So let me say it again, I won the debate, unless you can site where in the Constitution it says the Judical branch has powers relating to hwo this country conducts war.

      I already sighted that the Constitution gives the President the role to run the war. I also sighted Amendment 11 that shows how courts cannot hear Gitmo cases and why.

      Others on /. have sighted how the Geneva Convention does not apply to Taliban and Al Queda fighters and why.

      So let me repeat I won the debate. I ask of you what you asked of me, sight the Constitution and stay on target, I have proven "courts have no power when it comes to Gitmo or foreign fighters." Saying Congress makes treaties is off topic as we are not talking about the Legislative branch. Also the Constition itself puts federal law and the Constitution above treaties.

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    186. Re:Terror is winning by sheldon · · Score: 1

      Umm, I was debating that people like you are wrong when they say courts should be able to hear cases on enemy combatants.


      The courts have already heard cases on enemy combatants. So doesn't that make you wrong?

      Please, stop listening to what you hear on Rush Limbaugh and thinking it has some connection with the truth. His show is for entertainment purposes only.
  2. how did he commit fraud? by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What was in the package and what was claimed to have been in the package are identical... that's not fraud.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Xonstantine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, the fraud was probably misrepresentation of either his credentials or the purpose of purchasing the bioligical sample.

    2. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think (and it's possible I'm wrong, but here goes) that perhaps the prosecuting attorney saw something in the evidence that would lead him to believe that he somehow lied to the company to order the bacteria.

      That's about the only way I can think of to classify ordering something and receiving what you ordered to be fraud... If it's one of the many things that get tracked because someone somewhere once thought it could be used to make something. (Y'know, like how real Sudafed (with psuedoephedrine) is now something the pharmacies track the sale of, to prevent crystal methamphetemine manufacture.)

      Apologies for any spelling errors on the big words... or small ones...

    3. Re:how did he commit fraud? by 2Bits · · Score: 1

      But that's not important whether there was fraud or not. What is important is, the government made a snafu, and there is no way they will say "sorry". So, to save face, they push the charges on. The question is, how far will they go?

    4. Re:how did he commit fraud? by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "fraud" was actually probably another case of prosecuting somebody who should walk because the authority in question feels they need a conviction to justify their investigation.

      It's the same stupid reason we're going to try to send a perfectly innocent college student to jail for wearing blinking lights on her shirt to the airport.

      The search and investigation were probably justified. The prosecution almost certainly isn't. When did we forget that it's OK to do an investigation which turns up no evidence of guilt?

    5. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "How far can they go?"

    6. Re:how did he commit fraud? by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      Gee i sure am glad they are on to that. forget those real terrorists, focus on nailing this guy for mail fraud!

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    7. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's exactly what is going on (I know all of the people directly involved in this case). The federal prosecutor in Buffalo made a big deal of this case in the beginning and doesn't want to walk away without getting somebody. They couldn't make the bioterrorism charges to stick so they're going after them both for fraud.

    8. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same stupid reason we're going to try to send a perfectly innocent college student to jail for wearing blinking lights on her shirt to the airport.

      I object to "we". You mean Boston is. The US is not.

      There are some great quotes from the Boston police on that too, like how she's luck she's being charged with this and that they decided not to shoot her. The police actually said they should be praised for not shooting her.

      But that's a Boston issue, along with the Mooninite scare. That has NOT happened anywhere else in the US - just Massachusetts.

    9. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Christopher_Edwardz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When did we forget that it's OK to do an investigation which turns up no evidence of guilt?

      Right around the time "probable cause" made it OK to ignore the constitution and [investigate|terrorize|go on a fishing expedition with] anyone the powers that be don't like.

      This would also be right around the same time that the whole "double jeopardy" thing got worked around by filing state charges and then federal charges back-to-back or after losing in one arena.

      The "fraud charge" gambit probably references some technicality in WHY he wanted them evil-smarty-things that no honest (stupid|docile|sheep) citizen would want.

      The government's agenda for a while has been Citizen = stupid. After all, no citizen should be able to create or research or learn anything without A) A university to pay money to or B) a large corporation in which to be enslaved, right?

      C.E.

    10. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 5, Informative

      What was in the package and what was claimed to have been in the package are identical... that's not fraud.

      The fraud claim wasn't about the contents of the package - instead, it was based on how the order was placed. According to an article on AlterNet, "The $256 Question" :

      [Steven] Ferrell, a geneticist and professor at the University of Pittsburgh, allegedly provided Kurtz the organisms for use in an artwork, rather than using them in his own research, thereby violating an agreement he had signed when he purchased the cultures for $256 from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC).

      I think that's an accurate description from Kurtz's point of view, since I found the Alternet article via a link on the Critical Art Ensemble Defense Fund's press release page.

      So yeah, seems like there was mail fraud, but in a technically-correct-but-really-lame sense of "fraud" that reeks of desperation to pin something - anything - on Kurtz.

      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
    11. Re:how did he commit fraud? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      because the authority in question feels they need a conviction to justify their investigation.

      If "authorities" are so fragile that they cannot admit that they made a mistake (or at least apologize and move on, mumbling something about "we had to be sure") there's a real problem.

      Perhaps admitting error is a sign of weakness to some people. To me it's a sign of strength and character.

      Wearing blinking lights attached to a strange-looking device to an airport as a publicity stunt for an art project is another thing...

    12. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Tweekster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I think you are correct up until you reference the girl in the airport. In all honesty she invited lethal force. She was lucky they didnt use it.

      She is stupid and deserves to be punished severely.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    13. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Phroon · · Score: 1

      I think you are correct up until you reference the girl in the airport. In all honesty she invited lethal force. She was lucky they didnt use it.

      She is stupid and deserves to be punished severely.
      Have you seen the device? It was a proto-board with 5 LEDs, resistors and a 9V battery. While I can understand the initial reaction to the device as being proper (it's wierd, check it out!) but when you start punishing people severely for something that was not intended to create a panic of any sort you are inviting punishment for all sorts of actions. Sneeze in an airport? They might arrest you for having a hoax biological weapon. That taffy looks a little suspicious and he has batteries in his carry-on, it must be C4! And when it turns out not to be, your still charged with having a hoax bomb.

      "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;
      And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;
      And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;
      And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up." - Martin Niemöller
      Suspicion and investigation are fine (to an extent). It's when you talk about summary execution and charging every person that you investigate of terrorism with a 'hoax' that you've really tossed out the freedoms that America used to stand for.
    14. Re:how did he commit fraud? by misanthrope101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When did we forget that it's OK to do an investigation which turns up no evidence of guilt?
      Whoa there, buddy, back up a bit. Investigations cost taxpayers money. Offices with low conviction rates don't get budget raises. Cops without a lot of conviction notches in their belt don't go on to become successful politicians. When all is said and done, investigations serve more purposes than just investigating what happened. You're acting as if the most important concern is making sure the government doesn't lock up innocent people. That's a bit old-fashioned, don't you think? Haven't you ACLU types done enough to weaken this country?
    15. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's punish stupid people. That's not a slippery slope.

    16. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sneezing in an airport is not the same as having a electronic board with batteries attached to it.
      Your comparisons are awful and you are just turning a blind eye to the real problem.
      Typical liberal trying to play the victim and get some attention from the media.

    17. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      The "fraud" was actually probably another case of prosecuting somebody who should walk because the authority in question feels they need a conviction to justify their investigation. You are probably correct. I'm not sure what that has to do with my parent statement.

      The search and investigation were probably justified. The prosecution almost certainly isn't. When did we forget that it's OK to do an investigation which turns up no evidence of guilt? Guess what? It's a prosecutor's world. Guys like this get to bring the full resources of the Federal government to bear. This is the direct result of having an overly strong government and a lack of real citizen involvement in government affairs. Prosecutorial and LEO misconduct is nothing new. A much more noxious example: Congressional investigators released a "smoking gun" 1965 memo yesterday showing FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover knew informant Vincent "Jimmy The Bear" Flemmi murdered seven men but still protected him from the electric chair and let four other men go to prison for one of the murders.
    18. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are correct up until you reference the girl in the airport. In all honesty she invited lethal force. I'll remember that. Having flashing lights in Boston invites the local police to use lethal force against you.

      The next time I visit Boston I'll make sure I don't take my Bluetooth headset, or my cell phone, or anything else that might have a blinking light on it that invites lethal force.
    19. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She is stupid and deserves to be punished severely.

      I think you are a fucking cunt and deserve to be buggered with a bayonet. There, how'd you like it when your own stupid, reactionary bullshit is applied back to you?

    20. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "fraud" was that the bacteria were obtained for the purpose of research, but used for art. The intent of the fraud statute is to prevent people from selling things and not delivering them, or possibly obtaining goods without paying for them.

      Since the bacteria purchase was legitimate (they paid $256 for the goods and got what they ordered), there is no basis for a fraud prosecution. The US Attorney is essentially interpreting the fraud to mean "lying", which of course could make it a federal felony to order a magazine subscription sent to my mother's house!

      dom

    21. Re:how did he commit fraud? by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, the authorities can pluck you straight off the street at any time and charge you with buggering Mother Theresa's corpse. It's up to the judge to decide weather or not they have a chance of making the charge stick in a court of law. And in this case, the judge-Uncle Sam-is the one who levied the charges in the first place. Hope this guy is rich, cause' it's not how much "Justice" you can get, it's how much justice you can AFFORD

      --
      [End Of Line]
    22. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so then, just so we're clear, you'd prefer that the government doesn't prosecute people who use fraudulent means to obtain substances, from a laboratory supply company, which they couldn't have acquired through non-fraudulent channels? i agree with you one hundred percent that this is a unique case, and it's ok to take things like this on a case-by-case basis. and that's what the courts are for.

    23. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Phroon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sneezing in an airport is not the same as having a electronic board with batteries attached to it.
      Your comparisons are awful and you are just turning a blind eye to the real problem.
      Typical liberal trying to play the victim and get some attention from the media.
      Typical conservative playing the "Typical Liberal" card. Ad hominem works both ways, and I didn't post anonymously.
      How is it not the same? It's a broad over generalization and overreaction based on the facts. And it was one battery.
      My analogies do suck, but when people are being prosecuted because investigations don't turn up guilt to the original charge, they are exactly what's going on. You do something innocuous that someone thinks is suspicious, then you are prosecuted for just being suspicious.
      "The real problem" as you so blatantly put it (without stating the problem for clarification) is that we have made the choice to be safe instead of the choice to be safe and free.
      We could execute her for being stupid, if that's what you want. We could throw her in jail for... for what exactly? A Hoax? She didn't intend for it to be a hoax. Innocuous intent protects speech-like actions.
    24. Re:how did he commit fraud? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I totally agree that arresting someone for wearing silly fancy dress to the airport, or even worse threatening to kill them, is absolutely stupid.

      There was a case recently in the UK where a man who joked that there was nothing contraband in his suitcase - "apart from the bomb of course" who was arrested, charged and convicted and who as a consequence lost his job. In this case also the reaction from the authorities was completely over the top and stupid, the one set of people you can be fairly sure are not trying to smuggle bombs onto planes are the ones who are jokingly telling you thats what they're doing.

      On the other hand the over reaction is entirely predictable and anyone wearing silly fancy dress or making daft jokes at airports has got to have some clue their behaviour will get them the kind of attention they really don't want.

    25. Re:how did he commit fraud? by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      I think you are correct up until you reference the girl in the airport. In all honesty she invited lethal force. She was lucky they didnt use it.
      She is stupid and deserves to be punished severely. You are stupid.
    26. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Christianson · · Score: 1
      So yeah, seems like there was mail fraud, but in a technically-correct-but-really-lame sense of "fraud" that reeks of desperation to pin something - anything - on Kurtz.

      Speaking as a researcher, I am actually very much in favour of an investigation to determine if the allegation is correct, and if so, legal action against both Mr. Kurtz and Dr. Ferrell.

      Researchers occasionally need to work with substances that are legitimately dangerous, and no one wants handled by untrained individuals or stored in inappropriate facilities. To balance that need for access with the very real safety concerns, there is a system of checks and balances in place to make sure that hazardous materials will be handled properly. If the allegations are correct, then Mr. Kurtz and Dr. Ferrell flaunted those measures. Nothing other than their common sense kept them from doing the same thing with more dangerous substances, and if we could all rely on the common sense of others, then we wouldn't need laws to begin with.

      If this sort of attitude, where researchers start dismissing safety regulations because they "know better" becomes commonplace, then regulations are only going to get stricter, and punishments harsher. I don't want that, I don't need that, and Mr. Kurtz' valid point about government attitudes doesn't at all mitigate the error he made in bypassing safety regulations to prove his point.

    27. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ferrell, a geneticist and professor at the University of Pittsburgh, allegedly provided Kurtz the organisms for use in an artwork, rather than using them in his own research, thereby violating an agreement he had signed when he purchased the cultures for $256 from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC).

      I read this to say that Ferrell is the one who provided Kurtz with the bacteria and it was offered to Kurtz for use in his artwork. Ferrel is the one, if anyone, the government should be charging.

    28. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      In all honesty she invited lethal force. Yup.

      She was lucky they didnt use it. Yup.

      She is stupid She's a student at MIT, so probably not really stupid, just severely lacking in common sense.

      and deserves to be punished severely. Eh, I dunno about that. Giving her an $x000 fine (which may very well be severe for a college student) and a year or two of probation should be enough. She didn't cause any significant harm, so all the punishment needs to do is send a message to people to not strap electronic devices to their chests and walk into an airport.
    29. Re:how did he commit fraud? by ivan256 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Haven't you ACLU types done enough to weaken this country?


      Oh, spare me the ACLU crap. Yes, that's right, I wrote that original post, and I'm going to say bad shit about the ACLU.

      Where is the ACLU on this stuff? They only get involved, it seems, if whoever is involved is a minority, or there's actually a grey area, and the person may have actually broken a law. They push an agenda, and that agenda is a distinct subset of "civil liberties". They're the reason why somebody like me can say what I said, and somebody who *isn't* being sarcastic really can say what you said and be taken seriously. I honestly think the ACLU does more harm than good.
    30. Re:how did he commit fraud? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      You're right. She was stupid, and lucky.

      But why should she be punished? Because she made somebody nervous? Is that all it takes these days? What happened to freedom of expression? Do we need to have another revolution already?

    31. Re:how did he commit fraud? by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1
      Well, the ACLU has actually been involved in some gun cases, such as working with the NRAonce in a while. They certainly can't take all cases, and I'm unsure what specific civil rights were violated in this case. Excessive prosecution, probably, which unfortunately happens all the time. The ACLU's "agenda" usually extends to 9/10 of the Bill of Rights.

      They do of course have an agenda, and they are biased--as are all humans on the planet. Human objectivity, especially on something as emotionally complex as civil rights, is impossible, and it's irresponsible to say that they have an agenda without acknowledging that everyone else has one as well.

      As far as doing more harm than good, would you prefer to have just the NRA, which sticks up for 1/10 of the Bill of Rights? What other organization fights so consistently for such a broad range of civil rights? I thank the ACLU that cops can't (legally) torture confessions out of people, you can't be locked up indefinitely without trial (less true than it used to be, but still...) and so on.

      Even if they are more selective than we would like in which causes they champion, and even if they are imperfect (as we would expect them to be, being human), the alternative is... what? No civil rights organizations at all? Are you one of those who think that the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Red Cross, etc., have harmed the USA by saying "torture is wrong" and similar things?

    32. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well as a researcher, you should know that if you've ever given anyone a cell line then you are in violation of the original MTA and should be prosecuted as well. They could have easily cultured a wild bacteria, but they specifically got this one from ATCC because it was well known to be exceptionally safe to use. He was trained on how to handle and grow bacteria as much as your average graduate student. The situation is akin to ordering stuff for a high school teacher who wants to put on a demo for his class.

    33. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      Well, the ACLU has actually been involved in some gun cases, such as working with the NRAonce in a while. They certainly can't take all cases, and I'm unsure what specific civil rights were violated in this case. Excessive prosecution, probably, which unfortunately happens all the time. The ACLU's "agenda" usually extends to 9/10 of the Bill of Rights. You have a horribly optimistic view of the ACLU. The ACLU is active in defending the 1st and 4th Amendments and sometimes the 5th, but the 2nd, 9th, and 10th they are pretty silent on.

      As far as doing more harm than good, would you prefer to have just the NRA, which sticks up for 1/10 of the Bill of Rights? Comparing the ACLU and the NRA is pretty dumb. The ACLU is ostensibly an organization built around defending innate freedoms, aka the Bill of Rights, but their primary purpose these days seems to be the eradication of all Christian displays in public places (while at the same time supporting prayer in school for Muslims, which is sort of an odd position to take). The NRA evolved from basically a gun club to a national lobbying organization due to the relentless attacks on gun ownership by anti-gunners. Their purpose has never been defending the entire Bill of Rights. They are a gun organization, pure and simple.
    34. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I think you are correct up until you reference the girl in the airport. In all honesty she invited lethal force. She was lucky they didnt use it.
      She is stupid and deserves to be punished severely.


      Have you seen the device? It was a proto-board with 5 LEDs, resistors and a 9V battery. While I can understand the initial reaction to the device as being proper (it's wierd, check it out!) but when you start punishing people severely for something that was not intended to create a panic of any sort you are inviting punishment for all sorts of actions. Regarding the device, it's guaranteed that something very dangerous can be made to look just like it. Add in a capacitor and a switch/push button/simple wire and you have your trigger. There's all sorts of nastiness that can be done today.

      According to the story, she was asked about it, she responded oddly, instead of just going "ooo, you like my art?" or anything like it. She ignored the security person and wandered off. That alone is suspicious. Had she expressed any sort of reaction that would have alleviated the concern that prompted the question, this would have been a non-story because it never would have happened.
      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    35. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Altus · · Score: 1


      Stupid is as stupid does.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    36. Re:how did he commit fraud? by mink · · Score: 1

      "Regarding the device, it's guaranteed that something very dangerous can be made to look just like it."

      Would you kindly prove that statement?

      It's a solderless breadboard (I have a number of them) with very little on it. The play dough was not on it, it was a lump in her hand not attached to the device in any way and had no wires to/from either item.

      It was not made to look like a bomb of any kind. I challenge you to find a (home made terrorist level) high explosive stable enough to be used and hidden somewhere in the device that would do any damage.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    37. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      who said the explosive had to be hidden in the device?

      All I said was that "innocent" device could easily have been a trigger. There is no way a layperson (and that includes 99.999% of the police/security people, even at airports) would be able to tell.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    38. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My cell phone could be a trigger. And your statements and all the others could equally apply.

      There is no way a layperson (and that includes 99.999% of the police/security people, even at airports) would be able to tell.

      Exactly.

    39. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the M.I.T. student did not break any law, your statement that she should receive any fine or probation or (implied) charge is totally without merit.

      so all the punishment needs to do is send a message to people to not strap electronic devices to their chests and walk into an airport.

      If you want to pass a law against this, do so. Until then, you are not at liberty to use the legal system to send this message.

    40. Re:how did he commit fraud? by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      Fire, crowded theater, been illegal for a long time.

      Things that create a public panic and endangers people can and will be punished as they are illegal

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    41. Re:how did he commit fraud? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      That's a poor comparison.

      Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal if you intended it as a prank. If there is a fire, it's not illegal, and if you say the word "fire" to a friend in conversation and it is mis-interpreted by somebody else, that's not illegal either.

      I don't see how that has to do with either of these two cases. This guy didn't draw intention to himself in order to create public panic, and the girl at the airport wasn't trying to make people think she had a bomb. A poorly educated security guard mistook something she was wearing for a bomb. As such, if anybody created a public panic it was the guard, not the girl.

      You're just making excuses for our society that has confused the meanings of "justice" and "vengeance".

  3. Sore Losers by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

    Our gov't reminds me of my little brother. Well not so little anymore, but he still accuses me of cheating every time I win a game. We need more mature people in there!

    1. Re:Sore Losers by fireman+sam · · Score: 0

      More mature people will begin to question why we are required to fight other countries wars, why we continue to get deeper in debt for other countries , why we put other countries before our own in election promises.

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    2. Re:Sore Losers by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More mature people will begin to question why we are required to fight wars with other countries, why we continue to get deeper in debt fighting other countries , why we critisize other countries before our own in election speeches.

      There, fixed that for you

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
  4. blinking lights, everyday life forms in test tubes by shbazjinkens · · Score: 2, Funny
    I'm always scared of the day that someone finds my electronic test equipment and somehow connects it to my egg hatcher then creates a terrorist plot.

    I think this one's an incubator sir.
    For biological agents?
    I believe it's used to hatch eggs, sir.
    Eggs can be used to cultivate biological agents, proceed with the anal probe.
    He does have several dozen chickens outside...
    Damnit, follow orders or the terrorists win!
  5. Sounds about right by FoolsGold · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they can't charge you under the original accusation, they'll simply find something they CAN charge you with, to save face.

    Heavens forbid they apologize for putting him through hell. Oh no, can't have that. That would be a sign of weakness.

    1. Re:Sounds about right by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      It's right outside your door... NOW TESTIFY!

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:Sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can't charge you under the original accusation, they'll simply find something they CAN charge you with, to save face.

      For real. They need to damn stop with that.
    3. Re:Sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can't charge you under the original accusation, they'll simply find something they CAN charge you with, to save face.

      Right, there's a good reason why the feds have a 90% conviction rate. There's enough laws out there that they'll get you on SOMETHING.

    4. Re:Sounds about right by neverhadachoice · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just like in that story the other day when the guy called the police because the Circuit City manager would not let him leave. After it turned out he had done nothing wrong, he was arrested for obstructing police.

    5. Re:Sounds about right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a sign of weakness. Or the gateway to a wrongful arrest suit.
  6. The USA needs a new motto by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1, Troll

    "Land of the free" seems a bit passe.

    How about:

    "We're shitscared!"

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:The USA needs a new motto by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      "Land of the scared" is not only more satirical but it also rhythms!

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:The USA needs a new motto by dwater · · Score: 1

      > but it also rhythms!

      What does "rhythms" mean? Did you mean "rhymes"? In which case, with what does it rhyme?

      --
      Max.
    3. Re:The USA needs a new motto by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Yes, rhymes, thanks spell checker. And obviously, 'scared' rhymes with 'land' but maybe in your dialect of english it doesn't.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:The USA needs a new motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like:

      "I'm busy."

    5. Re:The USA needs a new motto by dwater · · Score: 1

      > And obviously, 'scared' rhymes with 'land' but maybe in your dialect of english it doesn't.

      I'm traveled a fair bit, and I've yet to hear a dialect or accent where those two words rhyme.

      Perhaps it's our definition of 'rhyme' that differs.

      --
      Max.
    6. Re:The USA needs a new motto by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Yes, perhaps our sense of the pedantic also differs.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:The USA needs a new motto by Glyphstream · · Score: 1

      The only way those two words rhyme is if you are drunk and slurring your words to the point where every word rhymes with every other word.

      --
      Sig unrelated.
    8. Re:The USA needs a new motto by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      The both end in 'd'. Get off my back. Christ.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    9. Re:The USA needs a new motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yaaaarrrrgh fickin shust waytuh minnit. Thasnot rime fer fickin no how! Shtoopid ay hole!

    10. Re:The USA needs a new motto by maj1k · · Score: 1

      you're so wrong it's not even funny. actually, it is kinda funny.

    11. Re:The USA needs a new motto by Glyphstream · · Score: 1

      Nope, not there yet. You still need about 10 more beers, and maybe a few jello shots.

      --
      Sig unrelated.
    12. Re:The USA needs a new motto by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      NO U

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    13. Re:The USA needs a new motto by dwater · · Score: 1

      Is that you admitting that you were wrong, and it doesn't actually rhyme after all? I was kind of looking forward to a link with an mp3 file of some strange accent. Oh well.

      --
      Max.
    14. Re:The USA needs a new motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I vote for "I want my mommieeee!"

    15. Re:The USA needs a new motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey! tHsist I mean wait. no

      thassit! no wait. waz tha words agin?

    16. Re:The USA needs a new motto by fractoid · · Score: 1

      OMG JELLO SHOTS! YAY!!!

      I must not shout. I must not shout. I must not shout. I must not... JELLO YAY!

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    17. Re:The USA needs a new motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a moment I thought you were going to prosecute him for something, just because you didn't want to admit you were wrong.

    18. Re:The USA needs a new motto by dosboot · · Score: 1

      For future reference, you are coming off like a jerk even if that is not your intention.

    19. Re:The USA needs a new motto by dwater · · Score: 1

      If you're going to insult someone, just do it. Don't bother trying to be polite.

      In any case, I'm pretty sure I don't give a shit, actually. The guy is obviously wrong and won't admit it - or explain why I'm wrong and it does, in fact, rhyme. I *was* actually hoping for an mp3 file - oh well.

      --
      Max.
  7. Like that "Hoax device" BS. by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I recognize the merit in, when a legal search is conducted, allowing the use of truly coincidental material found to charge someone with a crime. So long as the search was legal and reasonable. (Drumming up happens too much, of course.) That being said, this smacks heavily of abuse of the law, in a way related to the "Hoax device" BS about the Breadboard incident a few days ago: prosecutors or cops seeking to charge someone in order to justify the fact that they've detained the person, looking for a crime to charge a particular person with rather than observing a crime and charging the person responsible for it.

    IANAL, but oughtn't that to be illegal?

    1. Re:Like that "Hoax device" BS. by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but oughtn't that to be illegal? IANAL either, but I know it is illegal.
      --
      The game.
    2. Re:Like that "Hoax device" BS. by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      IANAL either, but given the amount of latitude we give the police in this country, do you actually think the law would be enforced if such conduct was illegal?

      Funny, the captcha for this post was "methods"...

    3. Re:Like that "Hoax device" BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "IANAL, but oughtn't that to be illegal?"

      IANAGrammarExpert, but torturing the English language like that ought to be illegal too...

    4. Re:Like that "Hoax device" BS. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "IANAL, but oughtn't that to be illegal?"

      I have no idea but I do think that "oughtn't" should be illegal.

      I can't even pronounce it much less figure out what was left out from the apostrophy! It made my teeth hurt just to read it.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    5. Re:Like that "Hoax device" BS. by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      See the usage note here.

      The construction is a little funny because of the number of negatives... but oughtn't that to be illegal ==> but ought that not to be illegal == Shouldn't that be an illegal thing to do?

  8. And then this hits the media... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    Dear Mr. Kurtz,

    Our bad!

    Sincerely,
    The Department of Homeland Security

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:And then this hits the media... by fireman+sam · · Score: 4, Funny

      You forgot:

      P.S. We are still going to charge you with something.

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    2. Re:And then this hits the media... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      and...

      P.P.S. Our bad for that too. But lets just keep this between us eh?

      --
      The game.
  9. Mail Fraud eh? by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As per the main story, the difference between 'Harmless' bacteria and deadly ones is pretty darn slim and hard to tell if you're not an expert in the field. This isn't the same as most other situations as it's organic, and organic things are complex, and complex things are hard to examine to see if they're dangerous or not. They shouldn't have been so harsh on him, or so overzealous in the raid, but I don't see any problems with them testing the stuff. He admits that he was recreating germ warfare experiments from the 50s using different bacteria. He says the bacteria isn't harmful, but his rig is similar to one used on extremely harmful ones. So...we should just trust him that the bacteria aren't dangerous? Circumstantial evidence was heavily on the government's side here, anyone preparing to recreate germ warfare experiments should be looked at closely, even if they claim to be using harmless bacteria.

    Now again, they should not have handled it the way they did. They should have been a lot nicer and lest gung ho about the whole situation, but they should have, and did, handle the situation, and that's good.

    As for the Mail Fraud charge...I wonder what the story behind that is. That I can see in the article he never denies that he committed fraud, nor confirms it, so it seems entirely possible that they happened across this and decided to prosecute him for it, and it's also possible that they're just trying to hit him with something to make it look like they accomplished something. There's not enough info to really tell...

    --
    There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    1. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a crazy opinion these days, because everyone is so chicken shit, but until he actually harms someone, he should be free to do whatever the hell he likes.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Tell me that when it is your family that dies from his "WHOOPSY!"

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    3. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 1

      until he actually harms someone, he should be free to do whatever the hell he likes.

      Okay. I'll just amass tanks of aerosolized Ebola until I save enough money to buy a plane with enough fuel to dump it on every bit of inhabited land on the planet.

      -:sigma.SB

      --
      WARN
      THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
    4. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by alshithead · · Score: 1

      This seems to be pretty typical of many local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Spend lots of money and time on an investigation and then once you realize that your main goal has no valid facts supporting it, find at least something minor in order to put the victim on the defensive to hopefully stave off lawsuits and bad publicity. I would call it saving face and defense by offense.

      Only the best run departments will say they made a mistake and apologize and then try to work with the victim to settle out of court. To me, that is the winning strategy. It says that they want transparency in order to keep the public's trust and that the taxpayers' dollar is spent on a fair settlement instead of expensive litigation and then possibly a huge payout.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    5. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by eli+pabst · · Score: 1

      It's been pretty well studied and the gov't actually released it on a major US city (can't remember which one) several decades ago in order to do a simulation of what an air dispersal of a biological agent would do. Plus your comment about it being a slim difference between harmless bacteria and deadly ones is kind of absurd. Putting bacteria into milk to make yogurt isn't the same thing as using anthrax. He didn't just randomly pick a bacteria to use either, he actually searched and consulted expert advice on which one would be the absolute *safest* to use.

    6. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by Splab · · Score: 1

      Ebola is a bad choice as agent since it has a habit of killing its host before it gets a chance to spread (which is why Ebola is usually limited to the Congo). You would be much better off with a strain of the Spanish flu circa 1914.

    7. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by n+dot+l · · Score: 1
      First off: I'm not completely convinced that this is just a case of government represses eccentric citizen. As the parent noted, there isn't enough information to say what the motivations for the fraud charge were. But, whether the man's innocent or not, there are some interesting issues here...

      Now again, they should not have handled it the way they did. They should have been a lot nicer and lest gung ho about the whole situation, but they should have, and did, handle the situation, and that's good.

      Agreed. There's really no reason to harrass this guy. Keeping an eye on him might be a good idea (cue surveilance state rhetoric) but making his life miserable isn't warranted (yet, as far as I can tell).

      He admits that he was recreating germ warfare experiments from the 50s using different bacteria. He says the bacteria isn't harmful, but his rig is similar to one used on extremely harmful ones.

      This, in my mind, is enough to justify some serious police scrutiny. Just to expand on that a little:

      Think of this as the reverse of AT&T filtering the internet for pirated movies. In the AT&T case, they can go ahead and spend all the money in the world building the filters and the P2P comunity will thwart them in a hartbeat. End of story, right? Wrong. Because once they have all those computers sitting there, hooked up to the communications infrastructure, it doesn't matter if they're currently assigned to a pointless task (screwing with illegal torrents), because they can easily be reassigned to other things like, say, filtering religeous/political/whatever views off of the internet (again, all this info could be P2P'd but this would cut off huge numbers of people that simply aren't going to think to look for news in a torrent site).

      Furthermore, it becomes much easier to institute other forms of content filtering without generating public outcry. All the work to put the servers in place will have been done for "legitimate" reasons. Switching the servers to "filter political candidate X out of existence" can then be done remotely by someone who can be keep his mouth shut, with no pesky employees talking to the media about "boxes and boxes of strange equipment being installed all over the country".

      The problem with what he did is similar. He's setting up equipment that could be used for germ warfare. And the "well, that mouldy loaf in my fridge..." argument doesn't even begin to apply here since he's building a lab that exist specifically for that purpose - this is not a case of "Oh, is that your alarm clock? I thought it was a bomb. It is ticking". The issue isn't that he can't really cause any harm by applying germ warfare procedures to benign bacteria, it's that there's no guarantee that he won't put some harmful bacteria into it in the future. He hasn't committed a crime, but he's set himself up so that, if he ever intends to commit said crime, he can do so more quickly, and while taking fewer risky actions that might alert the authorities to his intent.

      But as I said above, this is probably a good reason to watch this man, but it isn't a good reason to be a dick. If the mail-order bacteria happens to be harmless, so much the better, appologize to the man for delaying his shipment (if he even notices) and make sure you test the next one and the next one after that in case it turns out he really is a lunatic/terrorist that's out to kill a bunch of people. It sounds like a lot of work, but really it is the best way to go, since enforcement ends up committing its resources where threats actually exist and doesn't waste money pushing bogus charges through the legal system (and then on PR when the public is outraged over the abuses).

      And, as onerous as being watched by the government sounds, it's worlds better than being, publicly, shoved through the legal system. The former has a creepy sort of vibe and leaves you feeling violated (if you even notice, that is). The latter can cost you your job and all the things that job

    8. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Consider it said in advance. Some of us aren't so chickenshit afraid of dying (which is going to happen anyhow, sooner or later) as to give up everyone's rights. (I was also completely pissed about the US's overreaction to 9/11 back when it first was taking place. 3000 people? Who bloody well cares? Car accidents kill vastly more).

      If the death of my immediate family were necessary to allow individuals the ability to do research, art and politics with biological materials (or copyrighted materials -- fair use is every bit as critical, and just another aspect of freedom to tinker), that is a price I'd gladly pay.

      (My wife is with me in terms of being willing to die for her principals; likewise, my brother-in-law, the only other member of our immediate household. Indeed, my only close relative I know of with a different position is my mother, and... well, like I said: Chickenshit. I have no respect for those who claim to have strong principals but consider their lives more important, family or no).

    9. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hooray for rational argument.

    10. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by Erratio · · Score: 1

      That's crazy talk...that borders on that whole antiquated "Innocent until proven guilty" idea. It's far more efficient to spend heaps of resources which doubtlessly wouldn't be needed anywhere else to upset someone's life when there's even a hint of trouble until they're proven innocent. Then, of course, after they are proven innocent they must be reprimanded with a stern "Don't do it again" and perhaps have various parts of their lives essentially destroyed without compensation. That's the American way, that's the ideology that we fight to impose upon other cultures.

      Alright so that's a bit one sided...but a couple steps back towards the balance that we had as a people (at some point...I'm thinking just before the Cold War/super power thing) certainly wouldn't hurt.

      --
      I don't try to be right, I just try to make people think
    11. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      the difference between 'Harmless' bacteria and deadly ones is pretty darn slim and hard to tell if you're not an expert in the field

            Do you have any idea how many deadly bacteria you have in your mouth and on your skin? Staph aureus? (a pathogen and potentially deadly) check. Staph epidermidis? (ditto) check. Strep pneumoniae? (leading cause of pneumonia, important cause of death in the elderly) check. Strep pyogenes? ("flesh eating" bacteria) check. Neisseria meningitidis? (bacterial meningitis - this guy can be found up your nose) check.

            Perhaps we should lock YOU up too.

            There is a difference between a pathogenic bacterium and a genetically modified bacterium used as a biological weapon. Locking someone up for having a petri dish full of Strep pneumoniae is like arresting you for pollution if you use your toilet.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you the fuck no. Or are you suggesting the cops shouldn't have shut down the illegal fireworks factory that used to be next door to me? They should have waited until I or one of dozens of other neighbors were hurt or killed?

    13. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      I don't really disagree. The problem is that they didn't lock him up for having some harmless bacteria, they locked him up for having unknown bacteria, then released him once they learned they were harmless. It's more like locking someone up because circumstantial evidence seems to point to him having weaponized bacteria, then releasing him when he doesn't.

      As for your first comment, about my mouth (which I assure you, contains worse than that :P), that's my point. The difference between a harmful and harmless bacteria aren't that big, because even a bacteria that's harmless and already on me can easily become harmful in the right environment. It's not a simple on/off switch that determines whether something's harmful, it's a complex system, and you have to do some advanced testing if you suspect the bacteria has been altered (can't just use the standard pointers to determine what it is).

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    14. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      If you were going to build actual biological weapons, wouldn't you first test your equipment with something less lethal, in order to find problems in the system that might infect yourself? How hard is it to take something that produces "non-lethal" bioweapons to "lethal"? All you need to do is change your bug.

      So, was it a "performance piece", or is it really a "test", which "accidently" ended up killing his wife?

      Also, what happens if his "non-lethal" bug mutates?

      This is just another stupid "artist", with less common sense than God gave to houseflies. Another "lets take a fake bomb to the airport and see what happens" kind of idiot, who is surprised when people get upset.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    15. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      a strain of the Spanish flu circa 1914

      Spanish fly from 1914 is probably well past its "sell by" date.

    16. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (I was also completely pissed about the US's overreaction to 9/11 back when it first was taking place. 3000 people? Who bloody well cares? Car accidents kill vastly more).

      I just don't get it.

      They sent 3000 of our people to their deaths over here.

      We sent 3000 of our military to their deaths over there.

      Doesn't that make us even?

    17. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I agree .. even tho it means someone *might* get hurt that you had no right to hurt.

      Because anything else is prosecution for INTENT (which is to say, thought crime), even if no harm is actually done. Even if no harm COULD be done.

      Anyone here who hasn't, at some point, wished a well-deserved and painful death on someone else -- and at the time, MEANT it? maybe even planned it?? Well, if you believe that intent is all that matters, you're a murderer in the eyes of your preferred system of justice. Even tho no one was harmed and you never in ANY way acted on your "intent".

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    18. Re:Mail Fraud eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me that when it is your family that dies from his "WHOOPSY!" What makes you think his actions caused her death? Obviously the cops didn't think so, or they would have gone for a manslaughter charge.
  10. This story is very very very very very very old. by rafael_es_son · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    HAD
  11. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happened to just admitting they overreacted and were WRONG? The recent MIT student in Boston with a stupid breadboard and now this. I am not surprised that many of my colleagues in academia are moving out of the US to Europe of East Asia to continue their work. As an American, is it wrong for me to equate this action as the start of the end of the hegemony of the United States?

  12. This is what happens by Trikenstein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    when you can't admit that you overreacted.
    They have to move forward in an attempt to stave off lawsuits.

  13. In the industry... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is known as the "Boston" response.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:In the industry... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1
      "Square the Quad-Laser and you have, behold: The Quad-Glaser."

      Can you hear me Boston? Let me turn it up for you.

    2. Re:In the industry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, what can you expect of the city that did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent 9/11 and then did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING after it? (At least until the DHS MADE them.) The victims are still trying to get damages from Boston. Apparently they've decided it's best to overreact than risk having to pay money for blatant negligence.

  14. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remember when we used to make fun of Soviet Russia? Well, in NeoCon America, Soviet Russia makes fun of you!

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I LOL at the USA.

  15. Re:This story is very very very very very very old by Nasarius · · Score: 2, Informative

    And unfortunately, it's still very very ongoing. The mail fraud charges are new, IIRC.

    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
  16. Strange Place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose if we can't invade the right country, we're not likely to invade the right house.

    I feel like I live in a very strange place.

  17. WTF by Stickerboy · · Score: 1

    but until he actually harms someone, he should be free to do whatever the hell he likes

    It is a crazy opinion, and it has nothing to do with the case.

    So I should be able to breed anthrax in my home, just because I love growing anthrax bacteria?

    How about if I'm just curious to know if I'm able to weaponize anthrax spores into a dry powder, so I just do it?

    On a more everyday note, I guess it's OK for husbands to hold up a gun and threaten to kill their wife and kids if she leaves him, as long as in his mind he knows it's just a big joke.

    Or what about if he just shoots and misses her? No harm, no foul, right?

    --
    Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:WTF by QuantumG · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It is a crazy opinion, and it has nothing to do with the case. If you say so.

      So I should be able to breed anthrax in my home, just because I love growing anthrax bacteria? Yup.

      How about if I'm just curious to know if I'm able to weaponize anthrax spores into a dry powder, so I just do it? Yup.

      On a more everyday note, I guess it's OK for husbands to hold up a gun and threaten to kill their wife and kids if she leaves him, as long as in his mind he knows it's just a big joke. Hey, it's left field calling, they want their ball back.

      Or what about if he just shoots and misses her? No harm, no foul, right? Queue "firing a gun into a crowd" argument.

      Is it really so hard to understand? Freedom is better than security.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:WTF by thej1nx · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      So you are okay with being police storming down your home and shooting you down, because your kid was playing with a toy gun?


      Are you volunteering yourself to be arrested for fungus growing on that stale bread in your fridge? It is all like....that "bacteria" stuff, you know?

      Idiot!

    3. Re:WTF by 15Bit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With freedom comes responsibility. So yes, maybe you should have the right to grow and weaponise anthrax at home, but your neighbour should also have the right be safe from catching anthrax due to your incompetence in handling said material. Implicit within your freedom is a responsibility towards your neighbour (and everyone else). This is why (in theory) you CAN grow anthrax at home, provided you fulfil all the requirements for a license to run a biotech research establishment.

    4. Re:WTF by sheldon · · Score: 1

      Am I allowed to grow Yeast?

      Yeast grows, does that make it a biological weapon?

    5. Re:WTF by Reziac · · Score: 1

      This could get awfully fuzzy (literally!)

      Frex, damnear every college student has grown salmonella and other "dangerous bacteria" in their fridge, simply by neglecting leftovers until they started crawling around under their own power.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  18. This is why the US is falling behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The tinkerer's spirit was a big part of what made this country great. Now, if you're an electronics or chemistry hobbyist, people think you're a bombmaker; if you build and fly model rockets, you're suspected of trying to produce some kind of missile; if you've got a microscope and some test tubes, you're assumed to be manufacturing anthrax.

    When perfectly innocuous activities make people go totally apeshit with suspicion of their neighbors, the terrorists win.

    What really grinds my gears, though, is how common sense goes right out the fucking window... if this guy had anything to hide, why would he have allowed the authorities to see it? If he was up to no good, he'd have dragged his wife's body into the yard and told them she keeled over tending to the garden or something, and never let the EMTs or whoever in the damn house. Failing that, he'd at least have taken the time to hide the dodgy stuff first before making the call-- "I was taking a nap, and when I woke up, she was dead!"

    No. Instead, they're thinking, "Wow, what a lucky break, this terrorist invited us in to see all his incriminating terrorist supplies! Homeland Security FTW!"

    Fucking morons.

    1. Re:This is why the US is falling behind by markov_chain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hear, hear. If Feynman pulled the kind of shit today that he did during WW2 in Los Alamos, his ass would be in Guantanamo by now. What happened to the greatness of the WWII generation? Do we need a war to wake people up?

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    2. Re:This is why the US is falling behind by tukkayoot · · Score: 1

      What really grinds my gears, though, is how common sense goes right out the fucking window... if this guy had anything to hide, why would he have allowed the authorities to see it? If he was up to no good, he'd have dragged his wife's body into the yard and told them she keeled over tending to the garden or something, and never let the EMTs or whoever in the damn house. Failing that, he'd at least have taken the time to hide the dodgy stuff first before making the call-- "I was taking a nap, and when I woke up, she was dead!"

      I thought of that too, but people, even terrorists, are not immune to panic or failures in judgment, particularly when a loved one's life is slipping away before their very eyes. He might have thought there was some chance of his wife surviving in the minutes following the call, and after that he probably wouldn't want to take the chance getting caught in the act of dragging his wife outside the house as the ambulance drove up if he were a terrorist.

      I'm not sure I really blame the EMTs forwarding their concerns to the authorities. After all, you have the scene of a death and some sort of weird laboratory setup with who knows what kinds of chemical and biological agents. Prudence would seem to dictate at least some sort of investigation. The investigation itself appears to have been massively overblown, of course, and the mail fraud charge is ethically suspect, to say the least.
    3. Re:This is why the US is falling behind by langelgjm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The tinkerer's spirit was a big part of what made this country great. Now, if you're an electronics or chemistry hobbyist, people think you're a bombmaker; if you build and fly model rockets, you're suspected of trying to produce some kind of missile; if you've got a microscope and some test tubes, you're assumed to be manufacturing anthrax.

      It's not just tinkerers, either. Note that they also confiscated "posters with 'suspicious' Arabic lettering on them." This just made me laugh. If you don't know Arabic, I'm pretty sure you can't tell "suspicious" Arabic lettering from "salaam." I.e., God forbid you're trying to learn a foreign language...

      Many, many years ago, I received a piece of warning tape that says "Mines" in both English and Arabic, along with a death's head, as a gag gift. I wonder what would happen if the police stumbled across that, along with my "suspicious" copies of the Qur'an.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    4. Re:This is why the US is falling behind by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ``Do we need a war to wake people up?''

      No, we needed to delude people so we could go to war. "Weapons of mass destruction" "mushroom cloud" etc.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    5. Re:This is why the US is falling behind by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``What really grinds my gears, though, is how common sense goes right out the fucking window... if this guy had anything to hide, why would he have allowed the authorities to see it?''

      Rule number one of paranoia: when you think you've got it all figured out, remember that's what _they_ want you to believe.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    6. Re:This is why the US is falling behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm posting AC, but I'm using it for good, not evil. :)

      Here at home (non-USA country) I'm building a fishtank-sized cellular biology lab, complete with sterile environment & atmosphere. I use 250mw DVD lasers on tiny robotic arms to cut things inside the tank, and a whole lot of electronics and single board computers with blinking lights running the whole show. Since I'm doing stuff with plant cells, a major part of the system is comprised of nebulisers that turn the nutrient solution into fog for delivery to the cells. It has a steel 100 cubic ft scuba air tank hooked up with the appropriate pressure valves and couple of smaller gas bottles holding CO2 etc.

      I'm doing it as a hobby, to keep my very active mind in shape while I get past some long term chronic depression. I think a number of the older slashdotters can probably understand where I'm at right now, and would know that for a true geek who has 'the knack', there is nothing more personally soothing and self-esteem building than using your natural skills to engineer something uber-cool. So that's what I'm doing, and its going great, thanks for asking.

      Oh yeah, the plant cells are from a minor (decriminalised in some states os my country) narcotic plant.

      Articles like this make me very nervous. I'm just a harmless geek trying to use the skills that God gave me, no-one would arrest a 'jock' who took up intense exercise to get over depression, so why are geeks singled out?

      No, the system does not produce narcotics. It is however a very good bedrock for doing genetic engineering :)

      -AC

    7. Re:This is why the US is falling behind by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Yes, you need a war, because it is very hard to escape from such logical loop in which are Western government's security services are now.

      It's called P a r a n o i a and is very hard to stop it if you continue to feed it with your fears.

      Usually such people end up in hospitals. Well, but you can't put whole system there, can you.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    8. Re:This is why the US is falling behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if any of your soldiers ever make their way back home, they're gonna be pissed when they can't find any of the freedoms they've been fighting for. like, real pissed.

    9. Re:This is why the US is falling behind by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Do we need a war to wake people up?

            Actually, a "war" has put people to sleep.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:This is why the US is falling behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If memory serves, the way that law enforcement is best able to break a case is that the 'bad guy' screws up somehow. A terrorist may still love his wife and be distraught enough at her death to call EMTs without thinking about his bomb, certainly worthy of asking for more expertise to investigate. Also, if you will recall, Al Capone was put away for tax fraud because that was the only charge we could prove.

  19. Re:This story is very very very very very very old by HoboMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And therein lies the story. They're still at it three years later. Riveting, no. But it is newsworthy when the government seems to abuse its' power and decides to continue to do so for years rather than admit to being wrong. Note that I said newsworthy, but not new.

  20. Re:This story is very very very very very very old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the first line of the linked article - "On May 11, 2004, 911 received a call from SUNY Buffalo University professor and artist Steve Kurtz reporting the death of Kurtz's wife Hope from heart failure."

  21. He asked for it.... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Any artist whose art can be mistaken for a biological weapon ought to be detained imho. What was so bad about paintings and sculptures of people and nature that they had to be completely abandoned by modern artists in favor of making mostly stuff that a scrap yard would turn down as too hideous.

    Back on topic, the mail fraud charge really smells of them trying to find something, anything to charge him with to justify all the damage they did to the guy. Hope he has a good lawyer because if the facts are as they seem from a casual reading of the article (a big IF) he might have a good case for a lawsuit.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    1. Re:He asked for it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think I trust my government with that much mis-"interpretation."

    2. Re:He asked for it.... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Any artist whose art can be mistaken for a biological weapon ought to be detained imho. What was so bad about paintings and sculptures of people and nature that they had to be completely abandoned by modern artists in favor of making mostly stuff that a scrap yard would turn down as too hideous.

      Being vindictive to innocent people who have or like things that are complicated or blink is just plain silly.

      You are aware, I'm sure, that most real biological weapons and bombs look entirely innocuous. You know, like that guy's briefcase over there. Or the shoe that kid is wearing. Or the sheaf of envelopes that woman is holding, or that thermos the janitor walked by with...

    3. Re:He asked for it.... by ricree · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Did you actually read the article linked here? The projects that were confiscated were actually interesting and IMHO worthwhile. At any rate, I can see no reason that they should have caused any problems once their identity was confirmed. In case you didn't bother to read the article, here is the relevant section.

      Three projects seemed to really bother law enforcement. Critical Art Ensemble was working on a biochemical defense kit against Monsanto's Roundup Ready products for use by organic and traditional farmers. That was all confiscated.

      We had a portable molecular biology lab that we were using to test food products labeled "organic" to see if they really were free of GMO contaminant. Or, when in Europe, to see if products not labeled as containing GMOs really had none. We'd finished the initiative in Europe and were about to launch here in the U.S. when the FBI confiscated all our equipment.

      Finally, we were a preparing project on germ warfare and the theater of the absurd. We were planning to recreate some of the germ warfare experiments that were done in the '50s (which were so insane that they could only have been paid for with tax dollars). We had two strains of completely harmless bacteria that simulated the behavior of actual infectious diseases -- plague and anthrax. To accompany these performances, we were in the middle of a manuscript on the militarization of civilian health agencies in the U.S. by the Bush administration.

    4. Re:He asked for it.... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      To accompany these performances, we were in the middle of a manuscript on the militarization of civilian health agencies in the U.S. by the Bush administration. Heh.
      I wonder what he's talking about.

      The "militarization of civilian health agencies" began almost immediately after the offensive bioweapons programs were stopped by Nixon in 1969~1970.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:He asked for it.... by The_reformant · · Score: 1

      I agree with the first point but not with the second.

      Anyone dealing with infectious agents of any kind, even supposedly harmless should do so under careful scrutiny and control. He obtained this fraudulently through a university official probably to give credence to the handling facilities at his disposal and his own expertise. Neither of which I would imagine to be substantial from the sort of idiot who think its fun to recreate germ warfare experiments for "art".

      The goverment should come down on him like a ton of bricks, he could easily have got hold of something much more dangerous even unintentionally. Would you trust anyone on the street to make a judgement call about if a bacteria is harmless?

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this post is too small to contain.
    6. Re:He asked for it.... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Any artist whose art can be mistaken for a biological weapon ought to be detained imho.

            How far we have come from "I don't agree with you but I'd fight to the death to defend your freedom to allow you your point of view".

            Now it's "I don't agree and I think you SHOULD be hauled off".

            Yeah, great, America. Bunch of pussies. I'm glad I don't live there.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:He asked for it.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyone dealing with infectious agents of any kind

      So everyone who has a common cold or athlete's foot should be "under careful scrutiny and control" ???

      Anyone can go visit a local lake and come up with a culture more harmful than what this guy had. The natural environment is full of this stuff. Leave a bagel out on your kitchen counter for a weekend and you have a bioterrorism weapon?

      Let's get real here.

  22. It is not panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the beginning of the crack down. The feds are now in control. It was 1 thing for EMS to report it, but a whole nother thing when DHS charged the man.

  23. A sad indication... by rindeee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is indicative of our legal/law enforcement mindset (or what it's becoming) in our society. I am a staunch (and by staunch I mean I loath the current Rep party and must consider myself an independant) conservative. Anyway, some of you might have read a while back that a group of Hash runners (as in the Hash House Harriers running club) were arrested for marking their urban trail with flour. Why? Someone saw the 'white powder' on the ground and of course assumed that it was a terrorist bio-weapon attack of some sort. The HAZMAT guys were sent. The flour was discovered to be just that. The problem is, once the authorities got their teeth in this, they wouldn't let go. Rather than chuckle and go their merry way, they charged the 'offenders' with Breach of the Peace in the First Degree...a Class D felony. This whole story is known as the Hamburger Hash Affair. To contrast this, I have spent the last year and a half living in a very out of the way part of the middle east. Americans (of which I am one) are not liked here of course. One day while on a hash run, myself and the other Hare were laying track (using flour) and the local police observed us in action. They IMMEDIATELY stopped us and began rather intense questioning. Once we explained what we were doing and showed them it was okay by tasting the flour, they let us go and even wished us luck. Somehow it seems like a little role reversal here. We seem (as a society) to have adopted the "bust'em for somethin'" mentality. I don't advocate letting people get away with crimes, but this is getting ridiculous.

    1. Re:A sad indication... by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's like in the Soviet Union. The cops acted, and now they must act as though they weren't acting for nothing. In order to save face, they're willing to drag anyone through any amount of shit, including jail time and absurd fines, just to seem godlike and 100% precise in everything they do. (Which is in itself absurd, since perfection is by definition unattainable.)

    2. Re:A sad indication... by Slashamatic · · Score: 1

      In former times, to be a good law enforcement officer you needed to know the difference between the law and common-sense, and in the end realising that job was to "keep-the-peace", not as some legal fundamentalist.

      From time to time, Hashers have used other media for trail, i.e. chalk marks or sawdust to avoid the white powder = anthrax panic (actually, I've read that it is grey, but nevermind). Ironically in times of paranoia the chalk marks are "terrorist signals" and the sawdust may also be mistaken for biological weapons (I kid you not). If law enforcement switches to stubborn idiot mode (as in the Hamburger Hashers affair), there is very little people can do unless the dumb LE people are forced to back down.

      You see the same problems all over now. Maybe with the massive increases in manpower required after 9/11, the wrong people have been entering the security business - whether the FBI or the minimum wage X-ray machine operators. Common-sense seems to have been left at the door.

    3. Re:A sad indication... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "legal fundamentalist" -- Best description of the problem yet.

      And that's exactly what it parallels: By this black cat and yon bundle of herbs, thou needs must be a witch, and though we see not that thou hast performed any witchery, we'll keep dunking thy sorry ass until thou admits to thine perfidy!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  24. Defeat of Terrorism? by lancejjj · · Score: 1

    University professor and artist Steve Kurtz publicizes the history of chemical weapons with performance art pieces. The day his wife died of a heart attack, 911 responders mistook his scientific equipment for bioterrorism supplies. My neighbor puts on the same kind of show - you know, another one of those performance art pieces about the history of chemical weapons. It seems like no one attends his performances.... he says it has something to do with the feds scaring people away.

    At first I didn't believe him, but after reading this story, I'm not so sure.
    1. Re:Defeat of Terrorism? by rossz · · Score: 1

      A more plausible explanation is that his performance art is major shit, as is all performance art.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
  25. Is this freedom? by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    Is it really freedom if the authorities can simply switch charges against you when their primary charge doesn't work out? Like this terrorisms converted to mail fraud? Or arresting someone for resisting arrest? Keep in mind, that this is what is purposely being exported to the rest of the world.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    1. Re:Is this freedom? by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      So if the cops are investigating you for money laundering, and then they search your place and find a meth lab they shouldn't be able to arrest you for that?

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    2. Re:Is this freedom? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Well sure, if you have the meth lab in your basement and the warrant is actually based in actual evidence - can't just go traipsing through someone's basement because they might be doing something naughty.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    3. Re:Is this freedom? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      There's a difference in your analogy and a case like this. You haven't said anything about why the cops are investigating the alleged money launderer on the original charge. Normally, to investigate money laundering, you get a warrant to look at a person's bank accounts or bookkeeping, not their home. Why would the cops follow up on a money laundering investigation by searching a home if they didn't find anything at the bank or office? If they didn't find anything, their probable cause collapses, so why would a judge accept it as probable cause for a second warrant? Oh, you mean the cops didn't get a warrant for the home? So you're asking if cops shouldn't be able to search a home without probable cause or a warrant? Damned right they shouldn't!

      I was a commissioned officer in the U. S. armed forces for 7 years. During that time, I performed and supervised legal searches of military personnel's quarters. The legal advice I was given for this, was for all personnel to have what was being searched for firmly in mind - if we were searching for a stolen boom-box, no looking inside any container or drawer too small to hold it.
              We often did health and welfare inspections of barracks. In these, we sometimes seized foodstuffs such as cookies or candy, either from people on overweight lists or if the food was opened, subject to attract ants or roaches. Normally, we didn't seize them if in sealed or properly resealed containers. Drugs accidentally found during a h & w inspection were seized and destroyed, but the possessors were not charged, no written record of the situation was made, and the officers turning these drugs over to military police to be burned were not to give any identifying information about the service members.
              Note that theses sorts of limitations applied to searching people in active duty service, whose rights are arguably more limited than the average citizen's, and on property belonging to the government, not the citizen. Compared to this, civilian law needs to take the doctrine that "A man's home is his castle" as absolutely fundamental.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    4. Re:Is this freedom? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Erm no more like the cops are investigating you for money laundering and they find a sealed chest in your attic and immediately suspect that it's a bomb, call in the bomb squad and proceed to detonate your old collection of vinyl records, then book you for "terrorism". That's the kind of thing they're not supposed to do.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Is this freedom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Like this terrorisms converted to mail fraud?

      Yep, it's become SOP. Some years back, during a telecom workers' strike in the San Francisco Bay Area, someone cut a few wires in a couple of B-boxes. Naturally the silly-ass fucking cops had to trumpet, "If we find out who did this, we're going for the four-year terrorism enhancement on their sentence."

      Childish, dick-pumping bastards.

    6. Re:Is this freedom? by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      Why would they search the home, are you seriously asking this?
      How about to find paper documents related to bank accounts...
      Pretty obvious stuff here

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
  26. What a maroon by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why would you pay $256 for bacteria? Just buy $1 worth and let each bacterium divide eight times.

    Do it again and you've got $65,536 worth of bacteria which is serious money.

    1. Re:What a maroon by Invidious · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points. Win. :)

    2. Re:What a maroon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are using Excel 2007, in which case you get a nice round 100,000 bacteria.

    3. Re:What a maroon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, get a strand of Microsoft Excel bacteria and get $100,000s worth

    4. Re:What a maroon by Whatsisname · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you mean $100,000

    5. Re:What a maroon by pidge-nz · · Score: 1

      No, you mean $100,001...

      But what's a rounding error between friends?

  27. Tea by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Hmm, there must be something in the water in Boston that causes the people to go nuts - maybe it is tea leaves...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Tea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Boston doesn't drink water from the Bay, though. Yeah, yeah, I know, it was a joke. But the truth is even crazier.

      They get it from four towns they flooded in the middle of Massachusetts.

      Seriously. I shit you not.

      Boston's solution to unfair taxes? Dump tea into the bay.
      Boston's solution to water problems? Flood four towns.
      Boston's solution to traffic problems? Replace the highway with a tunnel.
      Boston's solution to vague terrorist threats? Punish anyone with blinking lights.

      Draw your own conclusions.

  28. had to say it by renegadesx · · Score: 0

    All your bacteria are belong to us?

    --
    Make SELinux enforcing again!
  29. Depends on a context. by megaditto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Egg hatcher at a farm is not the problem. But if someone finds an urban apartment stuffed with egg hatchers, Petri dishes, vacuum pumps, and high-speed milling equipment along with some photocopied manuals in Arabic, I would have that observer drop a dime on you as fast as it falls...

    And so was this arts professor SOL: Imagine YOU were the (non-specialist) rescuer that saw a woman go down and die in a house full of makeshift but specialized microbiological equipment whose owner is jittery to the max, and claims to be an artist, and cannot describe the equipment's purpose?

    Same for the idiot girl wearing the LEDs: handling the bricks of modelling clay out at an airport is not what a blinkenlights dork normally does. Not after the two planes blew up because of women carrying "modelling clay" a few years ago.

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    1. Re:Depends on a context. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Sorry, missed that one - when did some woman blow up a plane from the curbside checkin?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:Depends on a context. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some photocopied manuals in Arabic, I would have that observer drop a dime on you

      You, sir, are a racist.

    3. Re:Depends on a context. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have that observer drop a dime on you as fast as it falls...

      Really? I would have asked the guy which sciences he studies as a foreign student, and then gave the University a quick call to confirm his details. I guess I'm just not a paranoid scared little pansy like you though.

    4. Re:Depends on a context. by fractoid · · Score: 1

      ...and yet, the majority of terrorist acts in the current world climate are perpetrated by native Arabic speakers. Generalizations, while not politically correct, are the only things that let us deal with the unbelievable complexity of the world. It's the way the universe works.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    5. Re:Depends on a context. by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      But if someone finds an urban apartment stuffed with egg hatchers, Petri dishes, vacuum pumps, and high-speed milling equipment along with some photocopied manuals in Arabic, I would have that observer drop a dime on you as fast as it falls... Meaning what? How does someone "finds and urban apartment" with this stuff in it?
    6. Re:Depends on a context. by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

      Um, you got some figures to back that up? Or is that just what Fox News told you?

      Perceived risk v actual risk is exactly what he's going on about.

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    7. Re:Depends on a context. by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Nah, and I don't get Fox News (or any TV for that matter). And I'm sick of people insisting that I'm the one who needs to back up my statements - it's your turn, prove to me that the majority of terrorist acts aren't perpetrated by native Arabic speakers. Gogo!

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    8. Re:Depends on a context. by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the whole point of rational debate was that people made statements, then showed they were true. Unless of course, they just picked a point out of their ass or are trolling.

      my bad.

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    9. Re:Depends on a context. by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry, I think you've mistaken a /. discussion for a rational debate. I don't see any backup for your post either, feel free to provide some. :)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    10. Re:Depends on a context. by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

      OK, let me make this simpler for you by providing an example:

      "Elephants love cheese and tomato sandwiches".

      Prove me wrong. Show me a reputable web page that proves that elephants don't love them.

      Why the hell should I have to go off and prove your conjecture? You are trolling and you know it.

      And if you aren't, I sincerely hope you enjoy your life as a media sheep.

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    11. Re:Depends on a context. by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

      Alright fuckwit - here you go. Looks like there are three "Arabic" attacks in that list. Learn to debate properly or shut the fuck up - the world has enough bullshit in it already.

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    12. Re:Depends on a context. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he mistook you for a non-idiot.

    13. Re:Depends on a context. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      So why did either of these people (especially the MIT girl, I can see this mail fraud case being slightly more of a grey area) get charged with something after the experts had been called in and ascertained that they hadn't done anything that the officers feared?

    14. Re:Depends on a context. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      "Elephants love cheese and tomato sandwiches".

      Prove me wrong. Show me a reputable web page that proves that elephants don't love them. Check Wikipedia. Its article on elephants is never wrong.
    15. Re:Depends on a context. by hey! · · Score: 1

      Yes, what you are talking about is called probable cause. Things that raise no suspicions in one context can be suspicious in others, and reasonable suspicions are a sufficient basis for investigation. However suspicion is not proof. If the entire body of criminal civil rights that have evolved in over two centuries of American society were boiled down to one sentence, it would be just that. Suspicion is not proof. An investigation can proceed so long as the facts uncovered remain as a whole suspicious. As soon as the suspicions collapse into innocent explanations, the show is over. Period.

      The ability to detain a person and his property on the basis of probable cause is a pragmatic compromise; it does harm, limited harm, to freedom, to benefit security.Furthermore, it is usually a reasonable compromise. A reasonable person can accept being investigated in return for a real improvement in security, provided the investigation is carried out in a manner prescribed to minimize its extent.

      However, a reasonable person does not accept such an abridgment of his rights in return for nothing. Probable cause is not a conviction, nor is it a declaration that a person's private affairs are fair game.

      By the way, there were no photocopied "manuals" in Arabic if I read correctly; there was a poster for a movie festival that had Arabic writing on it. Under the initial conditions of evidence that prevailed, it might reasonably be suspected as having a steganographic message, but after the investigation had taken place and the message had been translated, the poster proved to be exactly what it purported to be. Seizing the poster, translating it, determining it is innocuous, then returning it to its owner would be a proper and reasonable procedure. Even if there had been photocopied Arabic terrorism manuals, there is no law against possessing such things. Again, once the facts of the case had been established, the mere possession of such things is neither an offense against public safety. Nor is the possession of such materials a public nuisance. If the public demands to inspect a man's private affairs, it must be prepared to be inconvenienced.

      The problem here isn't that the government investigated what this guy was doing. That much was proper. The problem was that the government didn't stop when its suspicions were found baseless. If the government doesn't stop, then drawing the attention of the government is tantamount to an automatic conviction, shortcutting all the protections we have built for personal freedom over two centuries.

      It comes back to the idea of a reasonable comprise. A reasonable person accepts a low probability of a limited interference in his private affairs in return for a significant increment in security. However, no reasonable person accepts the idea he can be punished so that agencies that turned their investigation into a media circus can avoid embarrassment.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:Depends on a context. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      along with some photocopied manuals in Arabic

      And exactly what is that supposed to mean ? That the Arabic language only contains words for "bomb", "chemical warfare", "suicide bombers" and so on ?? I'm them astonished at how Hard it has been to write the 1001 arabian nights using only such words !!!!
      Using the same kind of reasoning, one should outlaw anything written in the following languages :
      • German, Italian, Spanish (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco)
      • Russian (surely commies all along)
      • Chinese (all out to steal our jobs)
      • French (remember Jacques Chirac)
      • ... basically any other language ever published has some tiny grounds for prohibition, if you follow this theory
      And lets not forget that English has some very nasty things written with it, such as MIT courses in Nuclear Engineering, FAA-approved Flight Manuals, and George W. Bush speaches :-)
      So, stop being an ass, and use your brain for some time instead of repeating the media-generated keywords ...
    17. Re:Depends on a context. by megaditto · · Score: 1

      We are fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here.
      --George W. Bush

      Your data for continental US just proves that the W strategy works! If you look at the Muslim attacks worldwide, you will find shitloads in Israel, Iraq, Chechnya, Lebanon, etc. And I mean daily suicide bombings, kidnappings, and beheadings.

      Of course, all of the larger high-profile attacks are done by the Muslims as well: 9/11, Madrid bombing, Britain 7/7 and others, "black widows" in Russia, etc.

      Face it, most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    18. Re:Depends on a context. by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Lots of ways an innocent person can find it. For example, such apartment could be seen by a UPS delivery guy, a firemarshal, a plumber/landlord dealing with a clogged drain, cable guy setting up the internet connection, a callgirl in for a visit... You get the picture.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    19. Re:Depends on a context. by e4g4 · · Score: 1

      Same for the idiot girl wearing the LEDs: handling the bricks of modelling clay out at an airport is not what a blinkenlights dork normally does Just to be clear, she was not handling "bricks" of modeling clay - there were a few (very) small pieces of clay holding components in, and she allegedly was holding some play-dough (though I haven't read any confirmation of that) - she also did in fact respond when questioned about the purpose of her device.

      Remember folks, paranoia tends to lead to the distortion of facts, and leads people to mistake eccentricity for "omg terrorist!"

      And to those arguing that she's lucky she didn't get shot...what sense does it make to shoot hot lead at somebody who a) might be strapped with C4, and b) is therefore clearly willing to die, and therefore would be motivated to wire a dead man's switch into their device.
      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    20. Re:Depends on a context. by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that in the US, you know, where this happened, that assuming Arabic text relates to terrorism is racist, since there aren't any Arabic terrorists because "Bush's policies are successful"?

      Thank you for arguing with me against your bullshit that I first replied to. Seriously, don't quit your day job.

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    21. Re:Depends on a context. by megaditto · · Score: 1

      I never said targeting Muslims is racist: Islam is a religion, not a genetic trait. You religion is a choice, your race is not.

      I am saying that we should not rest on our laurels but continue to be ever vigilant against Islamic Extremists (currently the most serious threat to American interests here and abroad).

      Just because the Islamists have not attacked us here recently does not mean they aren't trying.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    22. Re:Depends on a context. by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Lots of ways an innocent person can find it. For example, such apartment could be seen by a UPS delivery guy, a firemarshal, a plumber/landlord dealing with a clogged drain, cable guy setting up the internet connection, a callgirl in for a visit... You get the picture. Yes, I get the picture, of the absolute surveillance society: everybody is at the watch-out for anything suspicious. All these innocent people calling police or whomever whenever they think something suspicious is going on within a space that is commonly referred to as the private. Pretty scary stuff, no?
  30. In my day.... by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 0

    Mail fraud?? Couldn't they just drop a bag full of dope in his office like they used to in the old days.

  31. We're from the government... by Tatarize · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We're from the government and we're here to help!

    -- The sad thing is they butcher the government programs make them worse than having nothing... then argue that they should be disbanded because they don't work. FEMA was a fantastic agency under Clinton, on the ball and everything, they weren't posting guards to prevent help from getting to people needing help.

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  32. Conform or die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is sad to watch (from a distance) a land of liberty and freedom decay into a society that outcasts non-conformists. You are destined to all be wearing brown and driving yugos very shortly.

    1. Re:Conform or die by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      I can see wearing brown, but is it not more likely we will all be driving SUVs then yugos? Tim S

    2. Re:Conform or die by tryfan · · Score: 1

      > and driving yugos very shortly.

      For people that are used to driving Fords, this may sound more like a promise than a threat.

  33. We need a civil war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do we need a war to wake people up?

    Yes, we need a war. A civil war.

    A civil war that puts a bullet in the brain of every single politician. Except that there's nothing in there, so better take a leaf from the French and make it the guillotine.

    What happened to the politicians that actually worked *for* the country and the people, instead of for themselves? Long gone.

    Yes, we need a war, against the "leaders" who have turned against us.

    1. Re:We need a civil war by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Try to catch a look at the President of Bolivia on the Daily show last night. Other than that you sound like time traveller zero.

      Makes me wonder if somebody posting here today gets a visit.

      And for the record I know a guy, fairly high profile in ICANN that stole some Anthrax from U of T and kept it in his fridge "just in case". He disposed of it in a city dump.

      This was about 4 years ago.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  34. Dickhead by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 4, Informative

    along with some photocopied manuals in Arabic, I would have that observer drop a dime on you as fast as it falls...

    And shit for brains.

    Do you wonder why Americans and the "free world" are threatened with terrorist activity? I mean it obviously couldn't have anything to do with how you select arbitrary groups of people around the world, demonize them to make it appear moraly okay to rob them, persecute, terrorise them and kill them to further your interests?

    Could it be that so many of your most vocal and prominant figures are so obviously either corrupt or stupid? Or the fact that you insist on challenging other nations for their transgressions with regard to international law and being the world's police force while your own agencies completely disregard the rule of law, as this case highlights?

    No, it's probably because every one else is jealous of your freedom.

    Big fucking rant here, but I am so sick of seeing absolute shit like that re-inforcing propaganda on a site that is supposed to be a bit more intelligent than the usual fare. Terrorist manuals are avaliable in many languages. Copies of the SAS handbook, anarchist cookbook, etc are out there and they are not in arabic.

    I personally feel safer about Iran having a nuclear program than I do about the US having one. How many wars have Iran started in the last 50 years? How about the United States? In those wars, which nation has used WMDs? Which nation has supplied more WMDs to other nations to fight proxy wars? Which nation has taken a decade to go from cooperation to war with at least two former allies?

    Sure, Iran has threatened Isreal, but Isreal is a state born from terrorism with a total lack of regard for international law. It is a state that continues to commit human rights abuses on the population it has displaced through the theft of land. It has developed nuclear weapons, refused to sign the NNPT and given it's total disregard for the humanity of any nation around it, and the fact that Iran supports the Palestinian people, I think it is much more likely that Isreal will be the agressor in any nuclear exchange in the middle East. I support Irans nuclear program if for no other reason than to keep Isreal in check.

    Your own government commits human rights abuses and supports foreign governments that commit human rights abuses. The most extreme abuses are of course reserved for non citizens, but I believe in the rule of law and a crime is a crime. Please fuck off with your propaganda, it insults my intelligence. And don't come back with that fucking US centric democrat voting liberal shit. I don't understand your political divisions and I don't want to. My opinions are my opinions, this post is predominantly fact.

    Sincerest apologies to any intelligent americans who can see through the propaganda but feel insulted by the strong language in this rant.

    --
    I don't therefore I'm not.
    1. Re:Dickhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you wonder why Americans and the "free world" are threatened with terrorist activity?

      Because we invite it.

      If a bunch of little boys poke a dog with a stick and the dog walks away, he's probably OK. But if he reacts in pain, he'll get a lot more of the poking.

      OTOH, if he eats a couple of they kids, they'll likely stop the poking.

    2. Re:Dickhead by rat10177sd · · Score: 0

      You're forgiven.

    3. Re:Dickhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally feel safer about Iran having a nuclear program than I do about the US having one.

      That's because you're a fucking idiot.

      Please fuck off with your propaganda, it insults my intelligence.

      Can't insult that which doesn't exist.

      And don't come back with that fucking US centric democrat voting liberal shit. I don't understand your political divisions and I don't want to.

      Seeing as the "political divisions" where you come from seem to be nonexistant except in how the DSM would classify them, add in that anyone who seems to have a lick of common sense is considered even worse than the National Socialist Democrats who made the trains in Germany run on time, and it becomes quite obvious that "political divisions" are something which you are incapable of comprehending since terms for doing so do not exist in your insane far left groupthinkspeech.

    4. Re:Dickhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kudos, sir. You nailed it right in the head.

    5. Re:Dickhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well done dickhead -- you ilustrate the parent's point exactly.

    6. Re:Dickhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kudos, except for the iran nuclear program to keep israel in check.

      i disagree because israel cannot afford to use its nukes except as a last defense against an all out invasion (which wouldnt happen). israel exists in a politically precarious state (no pun intended) where its human rights abuses are constantly threatening to undermine its support from the west.

      The only thing propping up israeli aggression (and it IS aggression) is western funds and political support -- and US political/economic undermining of palestinans (though israeli control of tax revenues and utilities helps a bit). Anyway, usage of nuclear weapons would destroy what fragile political capital israel has left--it is fragile because more and more people are becoming aware of the settlements, land grabs, cluster bombing, control of all palestinian utilities and taxes, and the nature of the israeli police state. Eventually, I hope enough westerners become aware of the situation to help the palestinians and rein israel in.

      Unfortunately, radicals suggesting the destruction of israel are still dominating the media--and causing people to ignore legitimate questions: Why did europe (and britain specifically) want to get rid of the jews? What foreign policy goals are met by continued funding? What is equitable treatment for the palestinians? And should we really tolerate human rights violations against arabs??? Is the west racist for continually pushing jews and arabs into a fight...or is it just "politics"?

      anyway, u rant, i ramble.

    7. Re:Dickhead by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 2, Informative

      For someone calling other people stupid and claiming to have such a grasp of the actual facts, it would do you service to actually consider the facts regarding Israel's creation and not call it a terrorist state. The creation of Israel was far from ideal, but it was also far from terrorism. (Any logical and even handed consideration of the state's formation acknowledges major problems with Arab leadership during that time period, mainly the fact that they went directly to war)

      While you have many points in your post I can agree with, the suggestion that Iran is a suitable nation for nuclear weapons is ridiculous. His abuses of human rights within Iran, especially with regards to women, prove that that administration would be willing to do things to other nations that even America wouldn't consider.

      And how many wars has Iran started in the last 50 years? Since there's no point in considering anything before the Iranian revolution, we can just go with 1979 onwards. They couldn't start a whole lot of wars considering they were at war with Iraq from 1980 until 1988 (Which Iraq started), leaving their military and country in a fairly weak state for many years after that. They have, however, said they want to take Israel off the map. And you think that they should have nukes to keep Israel in check? It's bad enough that Israel has nuclear weapons, the last thing we need is for two countries in the region to have them. The solution to nuclear proliferation isn't more nuclear proliferation!

    8. Re:Dickhead by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The solution to nuclear proliferation isn't more nuclear proliferation!

      Yes, because then you graduate from M.A.D (Mutually Assured Destruction) to M.G.D. (Mutually Guaranteed Destruction.)

      On the other hand, maybe you just get a lot of beer.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:Dickhead by delt0r · · Score: 1

      The solution to nuclear proliferation isn't more nuclear proliferation! It is however enivitable.
      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    10. Re:Dickhead by killminus90 · · Score: 1

      Wow, this is really good stuff. First you tell us that Arabs don't commit terrorism and that the US uses WMD all the time. Whats next, Santa Claus is real? How about the Easter Bunny?

    11. Re:Dickhead by Rufty · · Score: 1

      You are full of shit. Israel was founded on terrorism - look up the King David Hotel Bombing. Planned with the help of the first leader of Israel at the orders of the sixth leader. And this wasn't an isolated incident, but was part of a terrorist campaign. All this before the Arab wars / War of Independence.

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    12. Re:Dickhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beautiful troll, sir. I'm laughing my ass off at you. The best thing is, most people will think you're serious and a fucking idiot, when instead you're a brilliant mastermind masquerading as a fucking idiot. :-)

    13. Re:Dickhead by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Do you wonder why Americans and the "free world" are threatened with terrorist activity?

      I used to, then I listened to Osama bin Laden. We are threatened because we are "infidels". We don't make women wear head coverings, we allow them to drive, be educated, and leave the house without a male relative or husband by their side. We don't torture and kill gays. We have scantily clad women in our movies. We drink alcohol.

      That's what the terrorist says. Were you saying something? And should I care what you think, or what Osama bin Laden thinks?

      (Since you're likely clueless, here's the clue: I'll believe bin Laden.)

      I personally feel safer about Iran having a nuclear program than I do about the US having one.

      Then you're an idiot. I suppose you believe there are no gays in Iran, also?

    14. Re:Dickhead by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      It's bad enough that Israel has nuclear weapons, the last thing we need is for two countries in the region to have them. The solution to nuclear proliferation isn't more nuclear proliferation!


      Agreed! And Israel vs Iran would be very different from USA vs USSR. In the Middle East, you have religious fanatics who WOULD set off nukes, even at the cost of their own lives. And the proximity of the two nations means no margin for error. The cuban missle crisis would be a friendly picnic in comparisson!
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    15. Re:Dickhead by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The creation of Israel was far from ideal, but it was also far from terrorism. (Any logical and even handed consideration of the state's formation acknowledges major problems with Arab leadership during that time period, mainly the fact that they went directly to war) Maybe your claim is right, maybe it is wrong, but how does your claim support your premise? What does "they went directly to war" have to do with israel not being created through terrorism?

      While you have many points in your post I can agree with, the suggestion that Iran is a suitable nation for nuclear weapons is ridiculous. His abuses of human rights within Iran, especially with regards to women, prove that that administration would be willing to do things to other nations that even America wouldn't consider. Maybe your claim is right, maybe it is wrong. But that is some damn poor justification you've got there. The soviet union had terrible human rights problems, china still has terrible human rights problems. They both have had nukes for quite some time and nobody has been hurt yet.

      They have, however, said they want to take Israel off the map. Yeah, now we know you haven't done your research. Look up the history of that quote. It was purposely mistranslated in order to provide sound-bite fodder for arguments just like the one you are making. What he really said was a lot less inflammatory.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    16. Re:Dickhead by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Your post is, without a doubt, the stupidest thing I've ever read on these forums.

    17. Re:Dickhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your lovely camel back to the side of the cliff.
      She misses your affections.

      Yes- you are a dickhead

    18. Re:Dickhead by theralfinator · · Score: 1

      How the heck does a post like this get modded as informative? I really don't understand the mod system here sometimes.........

    19. Re:Dickhead by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Isreal is a state born from terrorism with a total lack of regard for international law.

      It was a compromise for an ethnicity that has claims on many territories but has been the subject of state and private terrorism for thousands of years. They have a claim on the land older than most (if not all) countries. So, giving them land back that they had a legitimate claim on, but had been pushed out of is 100% wrong? What would you do? They have been the target of genocide by many different groups for thousands of years. You know why they talk about Jews being bankers and jewelers? Because they are? Why are they? Because they were banned from owning land, so they'd have to have something else to do with their money. The world has screwed the Jews, and fucktards like you continue to complain when there is a very tiny little piece of land set aside in their historical homeland for them. Oh, and even that was invaded.

    20. Re:Dickhead by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      It was a compromise for an ethnicity that has claims on many territories but has been the subject of state and private terrorism for thousands of years.

      The majority of immigrants that founded the modern state of Isreal have as much genetic relationship to the Isrealites as I have. before WWII, the palestinians, including descendants of the isrealites got along relatively well compared to people in say, eastern Europe and Central Asia where ethnic rivalries and genocide have been the norm for a long time.

      The British deal basically moved a people largely descended from another central Asian ethnic group into the Middle East.

      Before the disgusting events in Europe under Nazi occupation, the Zionist movement was heavily involved in terrorism. The British deal was out of symapthy, but it was with this group of terrorists and their sympathizers.

      My sympathy for the jewish people is far outweighed by my disgust at the actions of zionists. I have no problems with jewish people living in peace anywhere, I do have a problem with the support by major world powers of zionist criminality. The zionists that lobbied, hijacked and bombed for the creation of Isreal are not descendants of Abraham.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    21. Re:Dickhead by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Russia was and is owned and operated by selfish greedy fucks that don't care much about anyone but themselves. So is the United States. However, Russia and the U.S. fought a Cold War for decades because, while both sides had mass quantities of atomic weapons neither side really wanted to use the things.

      Can the same be said for any number of other Middle Eastern countries? No need to answer: it's a rhetorical question. You simply cannot reasonably compare the situation between two superpowers (who both had a lot to lose and knew it) and two (or more) two-bit dictatorships run by quasi-religious fanatics who are in such close proximity that they have no need for expensive delivery systems.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    22. Re:Dickhead by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Can the same be said for any number of other Middle Eastern countries? No need to answer: it's a rhetorical question. You simply cannot reasonably compare the situation between two superpowers (who both had a lot to lose and knew it) and two (or more) two-bit dictatorships run by quasi-religious fanatics who are in such close proximity that they have no need for expensive delivery systems. Yet, despite all of that rhetoric, you can not reasonably assume that just because they aren't the US and Russia that they will arbitrarily use those weapons.

      And just like the original poster, you too make random claims that don't support your argument - the fact that they "are in such close proximity that they have no need for expensive delivery systems" is far more of a deterrent than being on opposite sides of the planet. If you think that Iran is some sort of nuclear Jamestown, then its pretty clear that you have been drinking too much PR kool-aid.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    23. Re:Dickhead by killminus90 · · Score: 1

      How bad can a country be that still uses stoning as a principle form of punishment? http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iran

    24. Re:Dickhead by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yet, despite all of that rhetoric, you can not reasonably assume that just because they aren't the US and Russia that they will arbitrarily use those weapons.

      Yes I can! And you are absolutely incorrect. You're still thinking of thermonuclear arms as elements of international politics, mere tools of "diplomacy" (e.g. North Korea.) They're not ... they're machines meant to commit mass-murder on a truly Biblical scale! Remember, we are not talking about guns, tanks, RPGs or other items of conventional warfare. These are nukes. Granted, the best that Iran could probably muster would be a few twenty or thirty kiloton warheads. Nevertheless, even that much destructive potential is terrifying.

      Consequently, the only rational assumption that can reasonably be made when dealing with a nuclear power of any magnitude is that it will arbitrarily use its weapons! To presume anything else would be suicidal. Get it out of your head that Iran (or any other nation) is necessarily entitled to be at technological parity with the major nuclear powers: dispense with your misguided sense of fairness. The fewer nations that have them, the better off we all are. That may offend your sensibilities ... but that's the way it is.

      I don't care if you think that Iran's government is a paragon of rationality (it isn't) or that they have some inherent "right" to have atomic weapons (they don't.) Keep firmly in mind that if Iran begins to assemble a significant nuclear arsenal (meaning: one warhead with a missile to shoot it with) the only way surrounding nations will tolerate that is if they, too, acquire such weapons. That's the danger of so much concentrated power: simply having the things makes you a threat ... and a target! This can only end badly, and I'm sure you recognize the risks.

      Worse, even if Iran had the resources and the long-term political stability to be trusted with nuclear arms ... can they hold on to them? Given the number of weapons systems of all kinds that have gone missing from the ex-Soviet Union, I have my doubts about Iran (or anyone else) being able to keep track of their weapons indefinitely. Even the United States (maybe especially the United States) would be a huge risk to the world at large if we ever suffered a major economic collapse. If a country can't protect its nuclear arsenal it becomes a danger to everyone.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    25. Re:Dickhead by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Yes I can! And you are absolutely incorrect. You're still thinking of thermonuclear arms as elements of international politics, mere tools of "diplomacy" (e.g. North Korea.) They're not ... they're machines meant to commit mass-murder on a truly Biblical scale! Please save the bullshit for someone who can't recognize it. You provide no supporting evidence for stuff like this:

      Consequently, the only rational assumption that can reasonably be made when dealing with a nuclear power of any magnitude is that it will arbitrarily use its weapons! Really, the best you've got are random italics, scary adjectives and plenty of exclamation marks!

      You actually have a good point or two buried in all that bullshit, but no one can take you seriously with all that ranting and raving. You discredit yourself long before you make a salient point.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  35. Help 'em out by c3ph45 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The website for the defense From the site: "We anticipate going to trial in the Summer of 2008, if not sooner. Your support is needed more than ever." and "We must raise at least $90,000 in the next 10 months to defeat the DoJ's abuse of power in this precedent-setting case!" You can go here to donate.

  36. Re:Terror is winning/OJ's side of the story by NXIL · · Score: 1

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-parker22sep22,0,1326069,full.story?coll=la-home-commentary

    From OJ's [if] I Did It: p 132:

    Both he and Nicole were lying in giant pools of blood. I had never seen so much blood in my life. . . . I again looked down at myself, at my blood-soaked clothes, and noticed the knife in my hand. The knife was covered in blood, as were my hand and wrist and half of my right forearm.

    Another passage from page 132:

    Now I was standing in Nicole's courtyard, in the dark, listening to the loud, rhythmic, accelerated beating of my own heart. I put my left hand to my heart and my shirt felt strangely wet. . . . The whole front of me was covered in blood. . .

    Nowhere does he say "if" he was standing there, or "if" his hands and knife were drenched in blood, or "if" two innocent people lay dead before him.

    So, that's OJ's side of the story.....let's hope terrorists don't get real good lawyers....hey, if Phil Spector can get a 10-2 mistrial, Robert Blake can walk, and OJ can go to Vegas to Stay in Vegas, Osama could get off, and, get a settlement for cash as well--with a good lawyer.

  37. The Real WTF! by Pizaz · · Score: 1

    is how when things like this happen, we curse under our breath and then do nothing. By action, the vast majority of us are completely apathetic to the government, the police or any other powers that be, in abusing their powers.

    This isn't about abuse of power. This is about citizen apathy.

    1. Re:The Real WTF! by Cheeze · · Score: 1

      what are you prepared to do?

      Sounds like just post on Slashdot about it.

      --
      Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
    2. Re:The Real WTF! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      is how when things like this happen, we curse under our breath and then do nothing. By action, the vast majority of us are completely apathetic to the government, the police or any other powers that be, in abusing their powers.

      This isn't about abuse of power. This is about citizen apathy. Apathy doesn't make me go WTF. I understand being tired/overwhelmed with life's little hassles or feeling helpless in the face of a giant machine.

      It's the people who defend these actions that make me go WTF. People saying that the "don't tase me" bro wated to be subjected to that because, as a journalism student asking a question to a bona fide congress critter and genuine presidential near-miss, he asked someone to be his cameraman when he asked his questions. Or when an electronics student named Star makes herself a shining star name tag, there's people to say she deserved to be threatened with summary execution then arrested on phony charges.
      Those are the WTF reactions.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  38. Re:Terror is winning/OJ's side of the story by Maserati · · Score: 1

    Just to put this out there again:

    In the OJ Simpson murder case the LAPD got caught trying to frame a guilty man. In the circumstances of that case, the jury had no choice but to turn him loose. Tampering with evidence is a big no-no in our criminal justice system. If they'd played it clean, they'd have convicted him easily. But all the important evidence was tainted. mishandled or planted.

    And there's a non-zero chance that AC Cowlings did it and OJ drove him around, but I don't think so.

    --
    Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  39. New tag: Boston by samwichse · · Score: 1

    I propose a new tag: Bostoned

    Or Bostonned. You know, for stories where a ridiculous overreaction occurs and the authorities act not as if they've made a mistake, but the innocent party has done something, "we're just not sure what we can charge him with."

    Land of the Free? Home of the Brave?

  40. Rhyme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The both end in 'd'. Get off my back. Christ.

    Wow, and here I thought rhyming had something to do with they way words sounded.

    Oh, wait, my mistake. You're trying to make a clever point about never admitting one's mistakes, right? ...

    Right?

  41. There is no "They" but just "Us". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Successful terror based groups are everywhere and they have sleeper agents in waiting at anytime ready to strike but you shouldn't be terribly bothered with that. The reason being is that with good training; they'll never be detected by regular people. What regular "Joe's" and "Joan's" should be concernend with is the leadership they are being lead by NOW! Does it represent them? Does it acknowledge their needs? Is it proactive in response to those needs? Does it serve the greater good aswell as the lesser? All of these things have NOT been carried out by the Bush Administration! In any event, stop thinking of the problems that come from abroad. Look at your homeland and see what needs to changed here and just do it! A true terroist is sitting in the Oval Office deciding if he wants fluff,jelly, or both on his peanut butter sandwhich. You know? The tough decisions.

    1. Re:There is no "They" but just "Us". by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Successful terror based groups are everywhere and they have sleeper agents in waiting at anytime ready to strike

            Yes you're right. In fact, I think you're one of them. You could be a terrorist and not even know it! Turn yourself in immediately.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  42. So they won then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Those who would sell a little liberty for a little security will lose both and deserve neither."

    Every time I get patted down in an airport and my bottle of drink taken off of me I realize that these new broad spectrum anti-terrorism laws are not designed to stop terror. They are there so strip the remaining semblances of liberty we have left to consolidate the power base of the governments that control the western world. In the US ordinary every day people are being charged with new crimes like "terroristic threatening".

    We welcomed increased power against terrorists, we helped the laws be written, and now they are being turned directly back on us. How can the law of our own nations possible affect the laws of another nation that harbors terrorism? How can introducing new powers over ourselves possibly enable the governments to enforce those powers on nations outside of their jurisdiction?

    1. Re:So they won then by Mechanist.tm · · Score: 1

      God Bless America and thanks be to God that i dont live there, the self declared greatest nation on the planet.

    2. Re:So they won then by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      "Those who would sell a little liberty for a little security will lose both and deserve neither."

            Which is why I'm glad I live in the 3rd world. Heh heh heh. Sure I have less security. But I can deal with that. I'm a lot freer than people in the US.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  43. Re:This story is very very very very very very old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how many tens of thousands of tax dollars were spent prosecuting and further investigating this guy for his $250 samples in those three years, even after they realized what he possessed was harmless?

  44. His University is under siege now... by The_Sledge · · Score: 1
    Not long after he was arrested, his entire department was under siege by Homeland Security agents. Bush is declaring war on what the department has dubbed "Al Gebra".

    (yeah, I know, it's old, but it needed to be said!)

    --
    HEX offender mugshot ID: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:His University is under siege now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also confiscated and drunk all of his Al Cohol to come up with these charges.

  45. There is precedence for that -- look at Aum... by patio11 · · Score: 1

    ... they were free to do whatever they liked, mostly, right up until they thought the government was sniffing around too much. Unfortunately for Japan, whatever they liked was "lets set up a full-scale chemical and biological warfare factory, and then use it to poison the magistrates investigating us so we can get back to causing the Apocalypse". Luckily for Japan, they were worse weapons engineers than they were chemists and the most of the sarin gas they whipped up, then released on the Tokyo subway system, stayed contained. So they only ended up killing a handful of people, many of them from stress-induced shock after the news got out that there was a lethal nerve agent on the subway they had taken this morning.

    But hey, up until about thirty seconds after they punctured the boxes carrying the sarin on the subway, their little chemistry experiment hadn't hurt anybody! Harmless eccentrics, Japan has plenty of those, why would you pick on them? *

    * Yeah, I know, I know, technically they had a few borderline effectual incidents before that, but it wasn't enough to bring down the hammer yet, so for the purposes of illustration we'll write those off as "Nobody got hurt" even though that is factually inaccurate. Nowadays, if you're a crazy apocalyptic nutjob and you make a $300 million chemical weapons plant in downtown Tokyo, the authorities will presumably give you the Nth degree on what you want to do with your chemical weapons. And you know? I am pretty freaking OK with that. Similarly, I am pretty freaking OK with the cops saying "Excuse me, sir, that over there on your kitchen table resembles, to my semi-trained eye, a functioning biological warfare experiment. You'll pardon my curiosity, but I'm going to have to ask you some questions about it".

    1. Re:There is precedence for that -- look at Aum... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Look. I'm an extremist ok? I hold extreme opinions and I'm proud of it. In a way, this is what Linus and I have in common. I *try* to be less rude about it than him, though. I, personally, would rather thousands of people die and *then* have the police get involved than to have a police force which runs around trying to "prevent" crimes from happening. Why? Because the alternative is chilling effects and the slippery slope that follows.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:There is precedence for that -- look at Aum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you'll object if you and all your close relatives and friends were to die in some incident, right? After all, absolute freedom is worth any price.

  46. this is how the Right plays the game by Maxmin · · Score: 1

    Remember Whitewater? Six or seven years of fruitless investigation against the Clintons? Found nothing on them? As soon as they found *something*, albeit completely unrelated to the original investigation, they went after President Clinton with a vengeance.

    This modus operandi is called "win at any cost."

    --
    O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  47. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Op is a fucking cunt.

  48. Unique definition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If our artist friend lied in order to trick the ATCC into thinking that he worked for a university that had biological facilities then that seems like mail fraud to me."

    When I was in college many years ago, I wrote my parents to tell them I was doing well in nuclear physics. I got a "D". My parents had warned me repeatedly not to lie to them, and I did. Via mail.

    I guess the FBI will come knocking pretty soon...

    You do know the ATCC is not a government organization, nor was his statement a sworn statement, correct?

    1. Re:Unique definition. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's still fraud.

      The moral of this story is that you can be held accountable for lying.

      So don't be stupid and lie to the wrong people. Especially don't lie about things of significance.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Unique definition. by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      The moral of this story is that you can be held accountable for lying. Unless you are President (pick one) or Attorney General ...
      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  49. I think I have it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the reason why they are still trying to jail this person:

    "Finally, we were a preparing project on germ warfare and the theater of the absurd."

    Can't have people saying that the terra threat responses are absurd!

  50. you didn't mention those goddamn hackers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All hackers are terrorist scum!

  51. I, for one,.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    am glad that the US and World have been made safer by the removal of this terror threat.

    Every day I get up I give thanks to God and Bush that I live in this great nation, where anyone who doesn't behave the way God and the Republican party intended is hauled away to have their balls burnt off.

    Long Live the Glorious Union of States!

  52. Something of Interest from the defense website by butlerdi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A series of very unfortunate events bestowed on the FBI a reason to investigate Steve Kurtz. They found material critical of corporate capital and its uses of science, and, where relevant, of U.S. policy. Like most politically motivated people, for Kurtz the point of producing such material was to publish it; the FBI could have found the same material in many places had they been looking, because its legality is a cornerstone of our society. We don't know if CAE was already being monitored, but circumstances put them under the government's scrutiny as could happen to any of us. Given the excuse and the complete authority to investigate every aspect of Kurtz's life, the U.S. Justice Department found a minor, noncriminal irregularity on which, as has become the form, they pinned criminal charges . It is not conspiratorial to say that the charges also serve the right wing agenda, including the maintenance and enforcement of divisions of knowledge and everharsher penalties for intellectual property violations,The prosecution does not have to articulate the goals of the system even to itself; everything is already in place.
    emphasis is mine ...
    --
    "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
  53. No joking allowed by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The insidious thing about counterterror efforts is the slow but steady chilling effect they are having on humor and eccentric self-expression.

    Twenty-five years ago I was talking to a friend about a book I'd been reading about the Trinity atomic bomb tests. Naturally I kept saying "atomic bomb." As we happened to be in an airport at the time, and happened to be approaching security, he started to look increasingly nervous and finally said something. He was right, of course, but what's the effect?

    The effect is that I am now self-conscious about what I talk about in security checkpoints... and airports in general (after all, they're monitoring book titles)... and public places in general. I obviously don't talk seriously about bombs, and by extension I certainly mustn't joke about bombs, and of course the safest thing is not to joke at all.

    I'm not going to wear satirical political T-shirts at public events where Bush is speaking... in fact maybe it's just prudent not to wear satirical T-shirts at all.

    I've been delighted by the emergence of cheap "blinkies," those little battery-powered LED flashers that use strong magnets and attach to clothing, earlobes, etc. Maybe it would be fun to be slightly outrageous and wear some of those just for the heck of it on New Years' Day? No, after the Boston "mooninite" scare and the MIT student who got into trouble the other day, it's probably best not to wear any blinking lights in public.

    Don't do anything to tweak public officials. Since you're not sure what will tweak them, best to just shut up and behave compliantly.

    Conform. Don't stand out. Wear "normal" clothing. Don't act in any way that calls attention to yourself. Don't read books in public with political or religious titles (except the Bible, of course). Play it safe. Don't joke.

    In fact, best not to smile.

    Just like Moscow in the days of the Soviet Union.

    1. Re:No joking allowed by sheldon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You must be new to Soviet Russia.

  54. Just to clarify by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 1

    If you don't have the appropriate facilities to handle biological materials the ATCC won't sell them to you. If our artist friend lied in order to trick the ATCC into thinking that he worked for a university that had biological facilities then that seems like mail fraud to me.
    Just to be clear he was a University at Buffalo prof. And I guarantee you the university has the facilities.

    FWIW the guy was a guest lecturer in a class I had and he was a harmless geek (and yes that is a compliment, this is /. isn't it?).
  55. Knob! by BlackSabbath · · Score: 1

    "Whats next, Santa Claus is real? How about the Easter Bunny?"

    How about "Saddam was behind 9/11" (chuckle, chuckle)
    Oh, sorry, I got that wrong didn't I? That's right, it was "Ahmedinejad behind 9/11".
    That's much better.

    1. Re:Knob! by killminus90 · · Score: 1

      Great comeback, I'm assuming since you promote the antiwar.com website, that you enjoy all of the conspiracy theories that the internet has to offer. As for Saddam and Ahmedinejad bad guys reap what they sow. I'm sure that in 10 years when Iran has nukes, all of the antiwar people will be proud of themselves.

    2. Re:Knob! by megaditto · · Score: 1

      You know, privately I have always wondered if Bush mixed up Iraq and Iran, and the rest of the administration just went with it to preserve some dignity.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    3. Re:Knob! by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      As for Saddam and Ahmedinejad bad guys reap what they sow.

      So when are you guys going to execute Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush?

      Step outside of a US centric view of the world and look at the broader picture. Just because they aren't killing US citizens on a huge scale, doesn't mean they aren't evil. They have orchestrated armed robbery of Iraq. Cluster bombs in civilian areas. Orders of magnitude more deaths as a result of "liberation" than under Saddam. An all for oil, as Greenspan has confirmed.

      Seriously, if you don't want to except international courts, them at least have the balls to have Bush executed in Texas.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    4. Re:Knob! by killminus90 · · Score: 1

      Did you actually read what you wrote? "Orders of magnitude more deaths as a result of "liberation" than under Saddam" The U.S. Armed forces isn't responsible for the senseless killing that are going on in Iraq. You have years of pay backs being dealt out from the majority that repressed by a minority. I'm not saying it is right, and I wish we had better control. Also, you need to put the glue bottle away if you think that all of the deaths since the war started compares to the amount of killing Saddam did while he was in power. "So when are you guys going to execute Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush?" I don't even know how to address this, first, I think that they are guilty of underestimated the ignorance of the people in Iraq, not working to oust the bad guys. I guess in a society without a second amendment, the thugs rule. Next, I have more of a problem with the Bush Administration with the Domestic policies than I do with the foreign policies. But in no way, shape or form do I see the Bush administration as criminal.

    5. Re:Knob! by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      The reality is that the Bush administration launched an invasion of a soveriegn state without a UN mandate and against international law. They did it to secure oil. There was no UN mandate for war and insufficient evidence at the time of the invasion that Iraq had failed to comply with its obliqations under previous resolutions. So in reality, glue or no glue, the US administration, along with the gang called "the coalition of the willing" commited armed robbery, human rights abuses, torture, used illegal munitions in civilian areas, etc, etc, etc. This is true and no amount of contradiction is going to erase that record.

      The U.S. Armed forces isn't responsible for the senseless killing that are going on in Iraq. You have years of pay backs being dealt out from the majority that repressed by a minority.

      When christians have been thrown in the ring in the circus and the lions are released, do you blame the lions for the bloodshed? The whole world would love to accept the US as the ultimate beacon of freedom and truth if the US didn't behave like a psychopathic armed robber and then refuse to take full responsibility for crimes.

      I guess in a society without a second amendment, the thugs rule.

      I'm not sure what a second amendment is, I don't think my country has one. I do know that the US is currently ruled by thugs and criminals. I also know that the US refuses to submit to international law, yet inists on forcing, under threat of violence, other countries to submit to US interpretation of international law.

      That is not championing freedom. That is not spreading democracy. That is criminality and if a precedent is set now, how much will future administrations be able to get away with before Hitlers Germany is repeated in th US. Hitler was very popular in Central Europe in the 1930s and there are many parallels between 1930s Germany and 2000s United States of America. The US does not subject itself to international law and if a second Hitler gets the presidency in the US, the international courts will have no power to put them on trial. But you just let them keep killing people to protect the american dream because it's obviously okay, as long as the people they kidnap, torture and kill are not US citizens, they aren't really humans, are they?

      My country is not free of guilt on this. I have read a legal opinion that at least three major government figures including the prime minister breached our federal criminal code over their support for the Gauntanimo Bay process. This is something I am writing letters to MPs about here. I hold no illusion that just becuase they pick foreigners and easy targets they are somehow less evil than figures like Saddam. And if we let this load of criminals get away with it, the next lot will push things that bit further.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    6. Re:Knob! by killminus90 · · Score: 1
      You keep talking about international law like it was a universal power. Let me tell you, if Hitler would have won WWII and pushed America back across the seas, International law wouldn't have meant two squirts of urine. Because international law only applies the victor dominating over the defeated, how many times has International law won out without military action?

      "When christians have been thrown in the ring in the circus and the lions are released, do you blame the lions for the bloodshed? The whole world would love to accept the US as the ultimate beacon of freedom and truth if the US didn't behave like a psychopathic armed robber and then refuse to take full responsibility for crimes"
      What the heck is this? You are blaming the US for the Arab on Arab violence that is going on in Iraq? This is insane!!! You just place blame on the Bush Administration and leave out the inconvenient parts about the Shea and Sunni killing each other. Shame on you! I assume that anyone that tries to talk to you about these topics has become weary of your incoherent thought and ends up just walking away scratching their head wondering where in the world you views come from. I kind of wish I was dead now.
    7. Re:Knob! by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      You keep talking about international law like it was a universal power.

      No.
      International law is nothing. So if a bunch of towel heads bomb the united states of god's own fucking asylum, why the fuck should I care??? (Hint - that's called irony - I know americans and liberals don't understand irony, but I'll try anyway...)

      You are blaming the US for the Arab on Arab violence that is going on in Iraq?

      No, but a bit stupid invading a country with so much underlying conflict don't you think? And the folks who invaded knew what they were doing when they decided to invade, by the way...oil?.

      I assume that anyone that tries to talk to you about these topics has become weary of your incoherent thought and ends up just walking away scratching their head wondering where in the world you views come from.

      Ummmm, that's really a bit stupid for you to say. My "incohrent thought" contains a little thing called "pragmatic logic", y'know, like they use in Europe?

      Of course, I'm probably talking to an American, so let me dumb it down a bit....

      People I talk to agree. But then they're mostly educated Australians and some Americans I'm currently working with. Intelligent people are all a bit sick of the stupidity of two parties that ignore what we think.

      I kind of wish I was dead now.

      Sorry to see you're willing to give up. Maybe, given that your attitude seems that of a dinosaur it's right, but it's still sad. RIP

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
  56. Anthrax is easy to get.... by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

    check the dirt in any farmyard that's had cattle in the last 75 years. It's not really all that hard to cultivate - isolation is a bit trickier. The bitch is weaponizing it. It's pretty much the same with almost all of the bacterial agents - they're little nasties that we live with every day - just concentrated enough to overwhelm your immune system.

  57. Off Topic... by KGIII · · Score: 1

    At least I warned you. But, well, have you ever taken so long to read an article and then travel the piles of links and search for more information and go off on strange tangents that when you were done you didn't have anything to actually contribute to the conversation that hadn't already been said but had to say something just because you'd spent so much time researching it? Worse? It was now so late that surely a billion people have already responded?

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  58. Sorry but WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Cops everywhere work on the premise that you're either a "good guy" or you're a "scumbag".

    Cops see everyone as guilty--of what they don't know until they start digging--but guilty nevertheless. Why else do you think the Police keep pushing for ever more invasive search rights to the public's homes and personal property? They know if they could just search one more place they'd get you....

  59. Why privacy is important by lymond01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This defines why illegal wiretapping and other invasive procedures should be done away with. A perfectly innocent person who is taken in by police on mistaken charges, then gets some petty mail fraud charge thrown at him. All after his wife's death. Unless we can agree upon what is right and wrong and not have people just make things up as they go, stay out of my business, because I'm guessing sneezing is going to be a felony soon enough.

  60. Reason why story this stor is vvvvvvvvery old by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    I've known about this case since Kurtz's wife died. It was big news in the Fine Art Community. It still is.

    The reason why it's still dragging on is this:

    The Feds look stupid. REALLY STUPID. They've spent a small fortune prosecuting Kurtz, and (on one hand) they don't want to see their investment crap out. On the other hand, they realise they don't really have anything on him. So what do you do?

    The same thing the retards in the white house are doing: running out the clock so they can dump the mess on someone else. Kurtz's persecution is political, not legal.

    Basically, there are only 2 ways the Democrats can lose the White House in 08 - keep rolling over on Iraq and nominate Hillary. If they grow a spine and nominate someone worthwhile (say, Edwards or Richardson), the Republicans can't win. No way. So, it seems like the Dems are fixing to lose 08, but that's still part of the plan...

    Basically, if the Dems win in 08, the Feds will likely drop the case, VERY quietly. On a Friday afternoon around 5pm in the summer of 09.

    If the Thugs win, then it depends on which Thug - if its some raving asshat like Guiliani or Tancredo or Huckabee, then Kurtz will go to trial in the summer of 09 and pay a $2000 fine and spend a month of Saturdays picking up trash on the streets of Buffalo. If the Thugs nominate someone rational, then they'll probably be willing to settle out of court, where he pleads guilty to some misdemeanor charge, pays a $500 fine and walks.

    but basically, I don't think the present regime can stand this particular case during an election season, so it's probably going to go nowhere until Nov 5, 2008.

    It's what happens when you live under fascism - especially an incomplete fascism like the corporatist regime in the USA.

    RS (expat)

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  61. I call bunk by huckamania · · Score: 2

    This is not a case of society giving up any rights. You don't have the right to be above suspicion in you wifes suspicious death. You also don't have the right to be a moron with impunity.

    Anyone see that cell phone add where a bunch of people doing different stuff all get an IM and rush off to some super market. They all act very suspicious and then do a cart race in the middle of the store. I think that ad should have a gun shot at the end. I know that will strike some of you as odd or bad, but what a stupid thing to advertise. "Use our products and scare the jeebus out of old people at a supermarket", seems to be an odd message.

    I could see the defense lawyer now, "There was a cart coming at high speed down a narrow isle and lots of screaming... my client was afraid for their life and had no chance to withdraw from the situation." That's self-defense, pure and simple.

    Same thing with the MIT chick and her play-dough performance art. I would mourn the death of a person in these situations, but I would still find the person responsible 'not guilty'.

    1. Re:I call bunk by timmy+the+large · · Score: 1
      Wow!

      Are you really that afraid in your day to day life? Do you think that a few teenagers in a cart are life threatening? How is a cart a deadly weapon? What is wrong with you?

      There are genuinly dangerous things out in the world to be scared of, why not be scared of one of those? Maybe you could worry about the dangers of driving on the freeway and work on getting the goverment to improve road safety or maybe increase mass transit. You could fear cancer, a slow and very painful death, and advocate more goverment spending on curing it. You could fear heart disease, the number one killer in the US, and change your diet and exercise.

      You could reasonablu fear any of those things, but you choose kids racing carts and a guy making art. I'm not saying it those kids should be racing carts in a supermarket. Its a childish prank and there parents should probably punish them, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of an armed response.

      Kurtz's art is the same sort of thing. I agree that what he was working on could have looked suspicous. The police should indeed have checked it out, but once they found out it was not a threat they needed to let it go. Instead they are continuing to hound this man. Some members of law enforcement actually try to say that he did kill his wife, even though all evidence shows she died of natural causes. Mrs. Kurtz had a documented heart condition for god's sake.

    2. Re:I call bunk by huckamania · · Score: 1

      I'm not afraid for myself, I'm actually afraid for the kids pushing the karts and the grandma coming around the corner. Don't you think she would be afraid even a little bit? Could you honestly convict her of anything if she did act in self-defense? Should she break her hip so these moronic kids can continue to do moronic things and expect no repurcusions?

      There was a bunch of base jumpers up in Yosemite protesting a ban on base jumping. The husband was being interviewed at the same time that his wife was doing a base jump. They were watching it and he was cheering her on. Her chute never opened. I mourn for her and her husband, but I don't have any pity for them.

      Simple answer, actions have consequences beyond intentions.

    3. Re:I call bunk by timmy+the+large · · Score: 1
      I agree with you on base jumping. It is a dangerous sport and they made their decion to engage in the activity. My younger brother is a rock climber. He does some very dangerous stuff, if he died doing what he loved I would be very, very sad, but it was his decision.

      That is not the same as shooting kids in a supermarket. People runnig should not automaticaly engender fear in a person. People do run, we are made for it. Seeing a group of teenagers running down an asile in a cart is not a threat. It may be a suprise, it may be a shock, but it is not life threatening. If your supposed grandma grabbed one of the kids and gave them a smack I would be totally on your side. The problem I have with your example is the extreme over reaction. When did our society get to the point that the first thing a person thinks when they see kids running in a supermarket is that someone is going to shoot them.

      We need to have a balanced response to threats or percieved threats. Maybe instead of shooting the person could get out of the way or yell at the kids to stop or watch out. A gun is not the solution for all your problems. A gun is the very last resort when things have gone so wrong that someone needs to die. I don't see how unarmed teenagers in a public place with lots of people could rise to that level. I'm sure that there may be some bizzare scenario where it could, but the likelyhood of such a thing is very minute.

      I am a huge fan of the second amendment and concealed carry permits, but it is important to understand that the right to bear arms comes with a responsibilty to use them wisely. If you cannot do that then don't carry a gun. I know people who feel their temparment is unsuitable for carrying a gun, so they don't. If you choose to take the responsiblity inherent in gun ownership, you have to face the consequences for the misuse of that firearm. It is all about personal responsibility.

    4. Re:I call bunk by huckamania · · Score: 1

      I don't even own a gun even though I am a rifle/pistol expert 3rd award.

      Here are some what ifs to consider:

      What if the kid in the cart is a skin head and the old women is not white.
      What if instead of an old woman, it is a mother/father with some little kids.
      What if instead of an old woman doing the shooting, it is a security guard trying to protect her.

      Yelling stop isn't going to stop the kart if the kids can't hear you cause they are yelling and screaming already.

      ---

      There was a girl who baked some cookies. She decided to share them with her neighbors. This is in rural America, btw. She delivered them in the early evening. One of the houses she visited had an old lady who lived there. The old lady wasn't expecting any one to come by and didn't answer the door. The girl knocked harder, which only frightened the old lady more. Then the girl started peering in the windows and knocking on the glass.

      Luckily, the old lady called the cops, but she would have been well within her rights to defend her property and her self, with deadly force if necessary. That's a right I will fight for. Idiots doing idiotic things for their own selfish interests and then claiming them as rights, they can go to hell.

    5. Re:I call bunk by timmy+the+large · · Score: 1
      Knocking on doors or windows is not grounds for shooting someone. The old lady in your story did the right thing. She was unsure of what was going on and felt frightened, so instead of shooting someone she called the police.

      Your story illustrates my point. A balanced response to some perceived threat. If you feel threatened or afraid get out of the situation( if possible), attempt to get help, and defend yourself with reasonable force. Killing someone, and if you shoot at someone you are trying to kill them, is not reasonable force when someone is coming towards you in a cart. Maybe if someone is coming towards you in a cart with a weapon, but that was certainly not the case.

      By the way, very few states, if any, would the little old lady have been within her rights to shoot that child. Most states require the person to be an imminent threat to yourself or others. Being outside the house the child was not an imminent threat. If the child had broken into the house that might have been another story.

  62. makes me think by radpole · · Score: 1

    They were just using simulators to fly into buildings perfectly harmless it was only a computer simulation....nothing that anybody would really do.

  63. We MUST have FEAR! by sheldon · · Score: 1

    How else do you expect us to get tax cuts passed through Congress?

    This fear thing comes from the top. The politicians use it to get you to vote for them, so that they can pass ridiculous measures helping their buddies. The cops aren't really the driving force, they're just caught up in the wave of panic.

  64. Tyranny is the OPTION of terror by crovira · · Score: 1

    and its use, without fear of retribution.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  65. Actually, the rich don 't have to bother with that by crovira · · Score: 1

    If you're really wealthy,
      you don't fly on a common carrier airline;
      you don't get into those TSA "criminal parade" line ups;
      you use a different airport, different roads to and from those airports
    and aren't inconvenienced by all of this crap.

    The reason the airlines still do their own security, instead of a federal agency, is because private air transport doesn't want to be subject to all of these 'rules and regs'.

    Wake up. If you're rich, you don't have to put up with any of this plebian crap. (Can you even think of anyone telling Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to take of their shoes before walking through the detector?)

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  66. As much as I'd love to agree.. by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    I can't, and it really, really pains me because I love telling stories about jerk cops.

    However, I've been stopped--each time with good reasons--twice in the middle of the night in the Pentagon parking lot (having an M16 at your window at 3AM is great fun) and a half dozen times within three blocks of the U.S. Capitol building and gotten nothing but warnings. On one of those occasions, in addition to the original offense (blowing through a red light in a screwy intersection), I had out-of-state dead tags (long story). I didn't get a ticket for either. He just said, "look, garage the car and don't let me see it again until it's current."

    Maybe it's a strange irony that despite the severely ramped-up security culture around here, they have a sense that they really have much better things to look out for, rather than turning every conceivable thing into that bogeyman for the sake of feeling important.

  67. Police State Laws... by dos4who · · Score: 1

    Good to see the "PATRIOT" Act, etc being put to good use!

    --
    "Yes, I have a Disaster Recovery Plan. It's called my Resume"
  68. Re:Actually, the rich don 't have to bother with t by phiwum · · Score: 1

    The security theatre that goes on in American airports these days bothers me a lot less than changes in surveillance laws, frankly.

    --
    Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
  69. Slashdot's Stripeo-terror Mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous Coward writes
    "Notoriuos homosexual and slam poetry enthusiest Rob Malda publicizes the history of his stupidity and refusal to change topicus.gif to an image of the U.S. flag with the correct number of stripes with performance art pieces. The day his gay lover died of a heart attack, 911 responders mistook his scientific equipment for stripe-removal supplies. After he was detained for 22 hours, Homeland Security cordoned off his block, and a search was performed on his house in hazmat suits, they found nothing. Now they're prosecuting him for "stripe fraud" for the way he obtained $256 of flag stripes."

  70. Don't be silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not legal fraud. It's not mail fraud.

    You're stretching definitions to try to prove you're right. I'd rather have a serious discussion about the gross abuse of government/police power.

  71. Dangerous conduct: prevent, or only react? by Steve+Hamlin · · Score: 1

    but until he actually harms someone, he should be free to do whatever the hell he likes.

    Sorry, it is a crazy opinion.

    Murder-for-hire conspiracies, egregious drunk driving, germ-warfare experiments in your garage. They haven't harmed anyone YET, but do you really think that as a society we shouldn't try to stop imminent harm, on the basis that it hasn't actually happened yet?

    Follow the proto-criminal and arrest him after the murder, after the automobile manslaughter, after the smallpox outbreak? "But you could have stopped it! Why didn't you?" "Well, he was free to pursue his willfully reckless behavior that any reasonable person would know would harm other people in the future, but that harm hadn't happened yet, so we couldn't. Sorry. We only arrest people, we don't prevent crime."

    I'm certainly not suggesting 'Minority Report'-style pre-crime police action, but as stupid humans show everyday, the threat of post-hoc arrest is not enough to prevent behavior that we as a society decide is not allowed.

    People do harmful things. People PLAN to do harmful things. People PLAN to do things to which any reasonable person would say "Are you an idiot?", and then they do those things, and then those things harm others. Where would you stop the chain? Or would you?

    Where that line is, is very gray. And subjective, to the individual and to society. Intent is hard to prove, as it the likelihood of harm (in some corner cases, like this one).

    But there is a line, and it is well before "until he actually harms someone".


  72. Refuse to be Terrorized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Bruce Schneier said it quite well in his essay Refuse to be Terrorized :

    The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics.

    The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.

    And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want.

    The United States of America came to be so highly regarded because it was the intellectual center of the world, a place for all to be free and listened to; now the forward-thinkers are more distributed, the US educational system is in horrible condition, and free speech is trodden upon regularly. The nation's leaders continue to extend American interests into places they do not belong, and they compromise the downsides by limiting freedoms at home. This hardly seems fair.

  73. Re: Burma vs Myanmar by evought · · Score: 1

    "Myanmar is another name for Burma, a country in Asia. We still call it Burma here in the US because our government refuses to recognize them as Myanmar."

    Also because it is the traditional name of the country and people know it by that name. Burmese political refugees that I have known refer to their country as 'Burma' and themselves as 'Burmese'. Places can have more than one name; it's OK. It's like the whole Britain vs. England vs. United Kingdom thing: popular usage confuses them, but it's OK and no one gets upset.

  74. Not Terror, Fascism. by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

    Part of the problem in this case has been around for decades. It's the "we'll get them on something" mentality. As in, cop pulls you over because he suspects you as drunk. Tests show you are clean, not a drop of the stuff in your system. So he then proceeds to look your car over for anything else he can nail you for. THAT was around before 9/11 and is unfortunately increasing.

    This is one of the major reasons why the government should not have cameras on the people in the streets for ANY reason. Eventually they'll feel the need to justify the expense. So they'll add more things for them to get from them. They'll get you for SOMETHING.

    --
    My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  75. Haven't you ever watched "Cops"? by absurdist · · Score: 1

    Why do you think it keeps running and running for so many years, as well as so many other police reality shows? Not to mention the scary/funny detective and forensic crime shows? To reinforce one point. The police are infallible. Repeat after me, the police are infallible. So of course, if the police arrest someone, there must be something they're guilty of. After all see the point above. And if you make enough laws, eventually everyone is technically guilty of something.

  76. RAH! by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    "State sponsored terrorism"
    You mean, like the stuff we've been doing around the world since the 50's?
    "Rouge states that possess WMD's"
    You mean, like the US of A?
    Countries that abuse "human rights"
    Heh, I could go on for hours!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  77. Thast occurs when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thats occurs when you give to ignorant, abusive people power over educated epople. im sure none of the policemen know anithyng about chemicals or laboratory instruments. the sad true is the actual society put the security of the nation in unprepared hands.

  78. USA legal system is a joke by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Everybody knows the US legal system is in bad shape aside from the obvious undermining of the "rule of law" of the last 6 years.

    Motive / Intent do not mean anything anymore its just a traditional question without meaning like a greeting "how are you?" Most any answer will suffice.

    If you speed and kill somebody or just kill somebody while driving slow and there is no motive: the two should be the same. Sure, fine them for speeding because that is the deterrent but the judge should be able to wave it (since killing somebody would deter most people + proper media coverage would make the most of it.) Americans are so stuck on revenge/punishment ironically they are self described Christians.

    When will we start arresting people who are tired?
    Drinking levels are so low, you can be in WORSE shape just being tired. Unless really drunk, its largely a matter of reaction time; which is also the argument for speed limits... and getting OLD people off the road and for stopping cell phones.

    My neighbor hit a SCHOOL BUS FULL OF KIDS with his car before the state realized he was legally BLIND... Before that he thought he could see just fine to drive. No chemicals needed to impair his judgment, reaction time... just his AGE.

    In addition, the PURPOSE for law or for specific laws goes largely unnoticed today. Speed limits are NOT about control although that is what its turning into. If they admit their mistake they shouldn't get sued but if they pull out obscure law out of their ass unrelated the initial mistake you should be able to sue the hell out of them.

    Mail fraud law wasn't created or intended for Mr. Kurtz. If the flu could kill you, DO NOT EVER GO ON CAMPUS.

  79. I schooled you more than your college profs did by jackspenn · · Score: 1
    1. The President has the power over the military if there is a war or not, so the "there is no war, therefore the President has no power" arguement doesn't work.
    2. To quote you "These aren't POWs.", so by your own statement the Geneva Convention does not apply.
    3. To quote you when you say the Constitution doesn't apply just "to USA citizens"; I can prove you wrong without having to go past the first paragraph of the Constitution for the Preamble says We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    So you are wrong, it says it was established by the people of the United States for themselves their children in the United States of America. It doesn't say for the people of Europe or Asia, or the world, it says by the people of the United States, for the United States.

    Before I school you again, do yourself and this country a favor and read the Constitution, recognize you are ignorant of the Constitution, that your mind was muddled by bad teachers who gave you a misguided representation of what the Constitution was, start giving the Constition the respect it deserves (i.e. follow what is says, not what you wish it said) and do not change it through self imposed ignorance or twisted interpretation, but only through the Amendment process.

    --
    Respect the Constitution
    1. Re:I schooled you more than your college profs did by WNight · · Score: 1

      You've laid your fallacies out so handily, I shall defeat them in the same order.

      1) The president has no authority to act outside the constitution, regardless of war.
      2) I didn't say the Geneva convention applied. I said the constitution did.
      3) Nowhere in there does it say it only applies to Americans, or only within the USA. Just that it's for the benefit of we-the-people of the USA.

      It's obviously in our best interest to setup a system where our government is limited in its actions. Not just to us, but to foreigners who might equate our governments actions with ours. Our country is weakened if nobody will deal with us because we're all liars and back-stabbers who use any little excuse to hold people in brutal shitholes and torture them.

      You may have read the constitution, but not with a critical eye. Moreover, you're responding to me with points that are totally irrelevant. Notice how I didn't bring up the Geneva convention, but you expected that I would and didn't stop to check once you saw POW. This "proves" that you're just a republitard beating the same talking points into the ground.