Agreed.
What bothers me most about this thread is that it was an obvious attempt to try and slam the Attorney General and the Patriot act. The actual issues invoved in the case were widely ignored by many of the folks who responded to the original post.
But the Slashdot headline for this thread proclaims that Mr. Kurtz has been charged, when in fact he has not (as you have confirm with your eloquent reply).
I personally think the "unexplained" death of his wife has more to do with this than whatever "statement" he was trying to make with his "art." The FBI and other agencies will routinely use violations of other federal statutes to get someone on a murder rap. This is all speculation on my part (which I'm happy to admit), but I think this might explain the situation more adequately than the hysterical need, by some Slashdoters, to blame everything wrong in the world on John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act.
Let's see if an indictment is actually handed down by the Grand Jury. Federal Grand Juries usually won't unless the prosecutor makes a pretty damn convincing case.
He isn't charged with anything yet. Certain individuals (who are artists) are being subpoenaed in connection with activities that may be in violation of federal law. A Grand Jury will determine if an indictment is in order.
I'm not familiar with the details of what may or may not have been amended by the PATRIOT Act.
But I'm fine making that stipulation: Mr. Kurtz is being investigated for potential violations of the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, as amended by the PATRIOT Act. There.
Perhaps you or other Slashdoter can help me: I've read the linked Wired and USA Today stories yet again. Where, in either story, is it metioned that Mr. Kurtz been formally charged with anything? The headline of the USA Today article is "Anti-terrorism agents *investigate* New York state artist." [emphasis added] The Wired article indicates that he is "on the wrong side of an *investigation*." [again, emphasis added].
In fact, the headline of the original thread post is inacurrate. Mr. Kurtz has not yet been charged with anything.
Anyone reading the links in the story would quickly determine two key facts:
(1) You would discover, in both the Wired and USA Today pieces, that Mr. Kurtz is *not* being charged under the Patriot Act. If he is charged with anything, it will be an older act related to bioterrism. He is not being charged under the Patriot Act. He is NOT being charged under the Patriot Act (did it get through?)
(2) Mr. Kurtz hasn't been formally charged with anything. He is currently the subject of a investigation brought about by the death of his wife. This investigation may or may not result in an indictment. Take this fact into consideration before forking over $$ to this "defense fund" (for which there is a VERY convienient link).
From the Wired story: "The subpoenas cited Section 175 of the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which prohibits the use of certain biological materials for anything other than a "prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose."
Section 817 of the PATRIOT Act is not mentioned in either linked story.
Wow. Some people have been subpoenaed to get facts about this case. What an unheard of trampling of rights.
Someone needs to do some fact checking before posting.
Oh wait, you can't carry in the UK, thanks to your brilliant politicians who have decided that law-abiding citizens do not require such protections.
That's why London now has a higher crime rate than NYC, and muggings continue to skyrocket.
Me out.
I worked for a professional services company that routinely achieve 50% margin rates globally. Who should decided was is fair or unfair profit margin? You?
I think you're making to much money, so I think you should give some to me. Right.
Hollywood has been outsourcing for years. Examples include The Lord of the Rings triology (almost entirely outsourced to New Zealand), and dozens of films where the city of Vancouver, British Columbia is passed off as various cities in the United States, all to avoid labor costs and union scale issues. For whatever reason, the entertainment industry seems immune from the big media "outsourcing" scrutiny placed on so many other industries.
C-Diddy
Slashdot Mirror
Venus Rocks!
Agreed. What bothers me most about this thread is that it was an obvious attempt to try and slam the Attorney General and the Patriot act. The actual issues invoved in the case were widely ignored by many of the folks who responded to the original post.
But the Slashdot headline for this thread proclaims that Mr. Kurtz has been charged, when in fact he has not (as you have confirm with your eloquent reply).
I personally think the "unexplained" death of his wife has more to do with this than whatever "statement" he was trying to make with his "art." The FBI and other agencies will routinely use violations of other federal statutes to get someone on a murder rap. This is all speculation on my part (which I'm happy to admit), but I think this might explain the situation more adequately than the hysterical need, by some Slashdoters, to blame everything wrong in the world on John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act.
Let's see if an indictment is actually handed down by the Grand Jury. Federal Grand Juries usually won't unless the prosecutor makes a pretty damn convincing case.
You're a good man, and I appreciate your reply. :-)
He isn't charged with anything yet. Certain individuals (who are artists) are being subpoenaed in connection with activities that may be in violation of federal law. A Grand Jury will determine if an indictment is in order.
But I'm fine making that stipulation: Mr. Kurtz is being investigated for potential violations of the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, as amended by the PATRIOT Act. There.
Perhaps you or other Slashdoter can help me: I've read the linked Wired and USA Today stories yet again. Where, in either story, is it metioned that Mr. Kurtz been formally charged with anything? The headline of the USA Today article is "Anti-terrorism agents *investigate* New York state artist." [emphasis added] The Wired article indicates that he is "on the wrong side of an *investigation*." [again, emphasis added].
In fact, the headline of the original thread post is inacurrate. Mr. Kurtz has not yet been charged with anything.
(1) You would discover, in both the Wired and USA Today pieces, that Mr. Kurtz is *not* being charged under the Patriot Act. If he is charged with anything, it will be an older act related to bioterrism. He is not being charged under the Patriot Act. He is NOT being charged under the Patriot Act (did it get through?)
(2) Mr. Kurtz hasn't been formally charged with anything. He is currently the subject of a investigation brought about by the death of his wife. This investigation may or may not result in an indictment. Take this fact into consideration before forking over $$ to this "defense fund" (for which there is a VERY convienient link).
From the Wired story: "The subpoenas cited Section 175 of the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which prohibits the use of certain biological materials for anything other than a "prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose."
Section 817 of the PATRIOT Act is not mentioned in either linked story.
Wow. Some people have been subpoenaed to get facts about this case. What an unheard of trampling of rights.
Someone needs to do some fact checking before posting.
Is this a rhetorical posting? I sure hope so.
Oh wait, you can't carry in the UK, thanks to your brilliant politicians who have decided that law-abiding citizens do not require such protections. That's why London now has a higher crime rate than NYC, and muggings continue to skyrocket. Me out.
I worked for a professional services company that routinely achieve 50% margin rates globally. Who should decided was is fair or unfair profit margin? You? I think you're making to much money, so I think you should give some to me. Right.
I always thought the Republican Party was soley responsibile for such environmental and specieist devestation.
But don't you understand that "corporate greed" is always bad, while outright theft in support of "use rights" is a much lesser sin? Geez!
Hollywood has been outsourcing for years. Examples include The Lord of the Rings triology (almost entirely outsourced to New Zealand), and dozens of films where the city of Vancouver, British Columbia is passed off as various cities in the United States, all to avoid labor costs and union scale issues. For whatever reason, the entertainment industry seems immune from the big media "outsourcing" scrutiny placed on so many other industries. C-Diddy