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."
Is it really so hard to understand? Freedom is better than security.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
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
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