Artists charged as terrorists? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 04-19-2005, 12:52 PM

From the Critical Art Ensemble Defense Fund website.

Quote:

What happened to Steve Kurtz?

Early morning of May 11, Steve Kurtz awoke to find his wife, Hope, dead of a cardiac arrest. Kurtz called 911. The police arrived and, after stumbling across test tubes and petri dishes Kurtz was using in a current artwork, called in the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Soon agents from the Task Force and FBI detained Kurtz, cordoned off the entire block around his house, and later impounded Kurtz's computers, manuscripts, books, equipment, and even his wife's body for further analysis. The Buffalo Health Department condemned the house as a health risk.

Only after the Commissioner of Public Health for New York State had tested samples from the home and announced there was no public safety threat was Kurtz able to return home and recover his wife's body. Yet the FBI would not release the impounded materials, which included artwork for an upcoming exhibition at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art.

While most observers assumed the Task Force would realize that its initial investigation of Steve Kurtz was a terrible mistake, the feds have instead chosen to press their "case" against Kurtz and possibly others. Despite the Public Health Commissioner's conclusion as to the safety of Kurtz's materials, and despite the fact that the FBI's own field and laboratory tests showed that they were not used for any illegal purpose, the U.S. District Attorney continues to waste vast sums of public money prosecuting this outlandish, politically motivated case.

(back to top)

What is the violation he is suspected of?

In their initial investigation - and now once again - the Justice Department is seeking charges under under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, as expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 10 Sec. 175 - Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons. (See below for full text of the Act.)

"Mail fraud" charges still serious - possible sentence of 20 years

On June 29, 2004, a federal Grand Jury appeared to reject these charges and instead handed down indictments of 2 counts each of "mail fraud" and "wire fraud" under Title 18, United States Code, sections 1341 and 1343. Also indicted was Robert Ferrell, head of the Department of Genetics at the University of Pittsburgh's School of Public Health. The charges concern technicalities of how Ferrell helped Kurtz to obtain $256 worth of harmless bacteria for one of Kurtz's art projects. Although they are a far cry from the charges originally sought by the District Attorney, these are still serious federal charges, which carry t he same potential sentence as the original bioterrorism charge would have: up to 20 years.

Attempt to cast contract dispute as criminal offense

Charges of mail fraud, and more recently, wire fraud, are designed to dismantle phony financial schemes that defraud the public out of money through mail, credit card or internet. Because these laws are written very broadly, they are also used to convict figures in organized crime, and in the same way have been used to put away social and political troublemakers such as Marcus Garvey. In Kurtz's case, they are clearly being used to silence an artist whose views are unpopular with the current administration, by making what could at best be a civil contract dispute over $256 worth of harmless, legally obtained materials into a criminal charge.

If the defendants did what is alleged in the indictment, they broke a contract. At most this is a civil offense to be settled between the University of Pittsburgh and ATCC, but neither of these parties have brought any complaint against Ferrell or Kurtz. To our knowledge this is the first time the U.S. Justice Department is intervening in the breach of a Material Transfer Agreement of nonhazardous materials in order to redefine it as a criminal offense. Read more about MTAs and why the Justice Department may be prosecuting this case. [LINK to Claire's CAE whitepaper]

Terrorism charges once again possible

Despite the previous Grand Jury's refusal last summer to indict Kurtz with bioterrorism charges, the prosecution has continued to try to paint him as a bioterrorist in their public statements, and has continued to falsely refer to the seized materials as "dangerous." They have also continued their costly investigation at public expense. O n March 17, Steven Barnes, also a founding member of the Critical Art Ensemble, was served a subpoena to appear before a Federal Grand Jury in Buffalo on April 19. According to the subpoena, the Justice Department is again seeking charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, as expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act.

The section of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act under which the prosecution is once again attempting to charge Steve, reads:

Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 10 Sec. 175

(a) In General. -
Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, or attempts, threatens, or conspires to do the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States.

(b) Additional Offense. -
Whoever knowingly possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. In this subsection, the terms ''biological agent'' and ''toxin'' do not encompass any biological agent or toxin that is in its naturally occurring environment, if the biological agent or toxin has not been cultivated, collected, or otherwise extracted from its natural source.

(c) Definition. -
For purposes of this section, the term ''for use as a weapon'' includes the development, production, transfer, acquisition, retention, or possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for other than prophylactic, protective [1] bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes.

Read the Patriot Act Sec. 817: Expansion of the Biological Weapons Statue

(back to top)

Is the USA Patriot Act at work here?

Possibly. The USA Patriot Act modified the specific section of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that the Justice Department initially sought charges under.

Read the Patriot Act Sec. 817: Expansion of the Biological Weapons Statue

(back to top)

What is a Grand Jury?

From the American Bar Association:

"The primary function of the modern grand jury is to review the evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is probable cause to return an indictment.

The original purpose of the grand jury was to act as a buffer between the king (and his prosecutors) and the citizens. Critics argue that this safeguarding role has been erased, and the grand jury simply acts as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor.

Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence.

In the federal system, the courts have ruled that the grand jury has extraordinary investigative powers that have been developed over the years since the 1950s. This wide, sweeping, almost unrestricted power is the cause of much of the criticism. The power is virtually in complete control of the prosecutor, and is pretty much left to his or her good faith."

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq.ht

(back to top)

How is this case related to other post 9/11 and historical cases?

Read a list with links to other Post 9/11 and historical cases of state repression of cultural workers, activists and other civilians.:

Download the list as a PDF

(back to top)

What is Critical Art Ensemble?

From the CAE website:

Critical Art Ensemble is a collective of five artists of various specializations dedicated to exploring the intersections between art, technology, radical politics, and critical theory.

Excerpt from the CAE book "Molecular Invasion":

"Over the past five years Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) has traveled extensively doing participatory performances that critique the representations, products, and policies related to emerging biotechnologies. When we do projects concerning transgenics, one of the most common questions participants ask is whether CAE is for or against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The reply from group members is always the same: We have no general position. Each product or process has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Some appear disastrous (primarily to the environment), while others seem soundly engineered and useful. The real question of GMOs is how to create models of risk assessment that are accessible to those not trained in biology so people can tell the difference between a product that amounts to little more than pollutants for profit and those which have a practical and desirable function, while at the same time have no environmental impact. Making such decisions is further complicated by a general lack of understanding of safety testing procedures. For those without scientific training, the question of what constitutes scientific rigor seems to be a mystery, and reading a study on the safety of transgenic products appears to be a mountain that is too high to climb. The concerned public can be further bamboozled by specialized vocabularies. The result is that individuals are left with the implied obligation that they should just have faith in scientific, government, and corporate authorities that allegedly always act with only the public interest in mind."

It seems to me that the best intentions don't always lead to the best results. This to me is a case just like that. The laws are there to protect, but herein, who is it protecting and what freedoms are being squelched?

this could easily happen to someone else...

meembo · 04-19-2005, 01:13 PM

Goddamn John Ashcroft

Where do Republicans find these Attorneys general (John Mitchell, Edwin Meese, John Ashcroft)? Under rocks?

Spend my taxes making my airlines safer.

link

Astrocloud · 04-19-2005, 01:50 PM

Wow, this is pretty bad.

http://www.caedefensefund.org/CAE_Artforum.jpg

ARTelevision · 04-19-2005, 01:56 PM

We know these folks.

Well, even...

I have no sympathy.

Life isn't a game.

You play with fire, etc.

Cynthetiq · 04-19-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

We know these folks.

Well, even...

I have no sympathy.

Life isn't a game.

You play with fire, etc.

art, is it possible for you to elaborate more on this without divulging any of your personal info. I've read what I can find online but cannot find anything to push me to the side that I see you on.

currently I see it as he's caught up at the wrong time and place... what am I missing?

ARTelevision · 04-19-2005, 02:21 PM

Won't go further into our relationship.

But I have knowledge of this group's work. They like to skirt the line of what is "acceptable" and even legal, IMO. I also see them as academics playing ivory-tower games. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who cry when the society they love to infuriate comes down on them.

Kurtz' bio-aesthetic work is potentially dangerous for many reasons. Again, this is my opinion. I make art-as-life judgements, as is my wont. He got caught up in post-911 legalities because that is the world we all now live in - including artists.

I also do not appreciate artists who work on the edge of societal acceptability complaining when they get into trouble. It's an attitude thing...

Cynthetiq · 04-19-2005, 02:23 PM

aaah i understand now.

pushing the envelope and challenging the system and sometimes it pushes back. gotcha.

martinguerre · 04-19-2005, 02:30 PM

i don't see any reasonable defense of the prosecution. regardless of if they have chosen to push boundaries, thei man is entitled to fair treatment by the law.

there's no "i don't like your attitude" exemption to the 14th ammendment, or any of the other due process statutes. Art...i respect your knowledge of the situation, but it really does sound like you're making a defense of repression here. you don't ask why those are the boundaries, and why a governement might chose to prosecute people who chose to do this as art. those aren't givens. governments don't have to react like this...the art is, by statement, intended to raise questions about food saftey. Why would a government prosecute people who resist the commerical/industrial narrative of how food ought to be grown? Why would a government get involved in any of this?

ARTelevision · 04-19-2005, 02:43 PM

They can take it to court, and they are. Let the legal system decide. That's what the process is for. I simply have no sympathy. And I also have no interest in the public outcry.

Phage · 04-19-2005, 06:14 PM

I don't think there is enough information here for any sort of discussion. The writer does not make any attempt to remain unbiased, attacking the validity of the law and spontaniously jumping to subjects like the Patriot Act in an attempt to justify his/her outrage. This is not surprising considering the source of the information, but it indicates to me too much of a slant to decide anything at this point.

The Critical Art Ensemble does not try to hide their opposition to the current administration, and it looks like one of their members decided that they could break the law just because they did not agree with it. Well I say too bad; you can criticise all you want but you still have to obey the laws. Besides, it is not up to those enforcing the law to decide if they want to prosecute violations they find.

As ARTelevision said, it is up to the legal system to decide on the constitutionality of the laws, the validity of the method of evidence gathering, and the guilt of those charged. Propaganda about his innocence will only stand in the way of that.

pattycakes · 04-19-2005, 06:41 PM

....bunch of bullshit. if highschoolers can get it what is wrong with him getting it?

....bullshit

jorgelito · 04-19-2005, 06:48 PM

Wait, I'm confused: What did he actually do wrong?

ObieX · 04-19-2005, 07:46 PM

He didnt do anything wrong from what i can gather. But that doesnt seem to matter.

Phage · 04-19-2005, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

From the Critical Art Ensemble Defense Fund website.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pattycakes

....bunch of bullshit. if highschoolers can get it what is wrong with him getting it?

....bullshit

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Wait, I'm confused: What did he actually do wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

He didnt do anything wrong from what i can gather. But that doesnt seem to matter.

Please, consider your sources people!
a) The info is from the web site of his DEFENSE FUND! It is a given that they will be putting him in the best light!
b) They don't even deny that he broke the law, just cry about it being prosecuted!

They are very sketchy about the actual charges, but from what I gather he had materials that high schools can legally have... except that the way he got them was illegal. So, the CAE thinks that it is really mean to fault him for that.

Cynthetiq · 04-19-2005, 08:33 PM

I just found this old article from the Washington Post, it's a bit more detailed

Quote:

The FBI's Art Attack
Offbeat Materials at Professor's Home Set Off Bioterror Alarm
By Lynne Duke
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 2, 2004; Page C01

NEW YORK -- "A forensic investigation of FBI trash." On the telephone, Beatriz da Costa says it wryly. Her humor sounds bitter. She's talking about the detritus of a terror probe at the Buffalo home of her good friends, the Kurtzes.

She's talking about the pizza boxes, Gatorade jugs, the gloves, the gas mask filters, the biohazard suits: the stuff left by police, FBI, hazmat and health investigators after they descended on the Kurtz home and quarantined the place.

The garbage tells a story of personal tragedy, a death in the Kurtz household, that sparked suspicions (later proved unfounded) of a biohazard in the neighborhood. And it tells a story of the times in which we live, with almost daily warnings about terror, and with law enforcement primed to pounce.

Steve Kurtz, a Buffalo art professor, discovered on the morning of May 11 that his wife of 20 years, Hope Kurtz, had stopped breathing. He called 911. Police and emergency personnel responded, and what they saw in the Kurtz home has triggered a full-blown probe -- into the vials and bacterial cultures and strange contraptions and laboratory equipment.

The FBI is investigating. A federal grand jury has been impaneled. Witnesses have been subpoenaed, including da Costa.

Kurtz and his late wife were founders of the Critical Art Ensemble, an internationally renowned collective of "tactical media" protest and performance artists. Steve Kurtz, 48, has focused on the problems of the emergence of biotechnology, such as genetically modified food. He and the art ensemble, which also includes da Costa, have authored several books including "Digital Resistance: Explorations in Tactical Media" and "Electronic Civil Disobedience and Other Unpopular Ideas," both published by Autonomedia/Semiotext(e).

The day of his wife's death, Kurtz told the authorities who he is and what he does.

"He explained to them that he uses [the equipment] in connection with his art, and the next thing you know they call the FBI and a full hazmat team is deposited there from Quantico -- that's what they told me," says Paul Cambria, the lawyer who is representing Kurtz. "And they all showed up in their suits and they're hosing each other down and closing the street off, and all the news cameras were there and the head of the [Buffalo] FBI is granting interviews. It was a complete circus."

Cambria, the bicoastal Buffalo and Los Angeles lawyer best known for representing pornographer Larry Flynt, calls the Kurtz episode a "colossal overreaction."

FBI agents put Kurtz in a hotel, where they continued to question him. Cambria says Kurtz felt like a detainee over the two days he was at the hotel. Paul Moskal, spokesman for the Buffalo office of the FBI, says the bureau put Kurtz in a hotel because his home had been declared off limits. The probe, Moskal says, was a by-the-books affair from the very beginning.

"Post-9/11 protocol is such that first-responders have all been given training about unusual things and unusual situations," Moskal says.

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."

Erie County health officials declared the Kurtz home a potential health risk and sealed it for two days while a state lab examined the bacterial cultures found inside. Officials won't divulge what precisely was examined, but it turned out not to be a danger to public health. And the house was reopened for use.

Still, federal authorities think something in that house might have been illegal, Cambria surmises. But Cambria denies there was anything illegal in the house. William Hochul Jr., chief of the anti-terrorism unit for the U.S. attorney's office in the Western District of New York, would not comment on the investigation.

Kurtz, on Cambria's advice, isn't speaking to the press either.

Da Costa, a professor at the University of California at Irvine who has flown to Buffalo to help out, says Kurtz is "depressed" and dealing with the loss of his wife, who died of a heart attack. Today the Buffalo arts community will memorialize her.

Adele Henderson, chair of the art department of the State University of New York at Buffalo, where Kurtz has tenure, is among the people who've been questioned by the FBI.

On May 21, she says, the FBI asked her about Kurtz's art, his writings, his books; why his organization (the art ensemble) is listed as a collective rather than by its individual members; how it is funded.

"They asked me if I'd be surprised if I found out he was found to be involved in bioterrorism," she says.

Her response? "I am absolutely certain that Steve would not be involved."

They also asked about "his personal life," Henderson says, but she would not describe the questions or her responses.

The investigation, she says, will have no bearing on Kurtz's standing at the university, where he is an associate professor. (Prior to Buffalo, he taught at Carnegie Mellon University.)

"This is a free speech issue, and some people at the university remember a time during the McCarthy period when some university professors were harassed quite badly," she says.

Nonetheless, considering the kind of art Kurtz practices and the kind of supplies he uses, "I could see how they would think it was really strange."

For instance: the mobile DNA extracting machine used for testing food products for genetic contamination. Such a machine was in Kurtz's home. His focus, in recent years, has been on projects that highlight the trouble with genetically modified seeds.

In November 2002, in an installation called "Molecular Invasion," Kurtz grew genetically modified seeds in small pots beneath growth lamps at the Corcoran Gallery of Art, then engineered them in reverse with herbicide, meaning he killed them.

"We thought it was very important to have Critical Art Ensemble here because we try to have our visiting artist's program present work that takes our curriculum to the next step," says Denise Mullen, vice dean of the Corcoran College of Art and Design, whose Hemicycle Gallery hosted Kurtz's molecular exhibit.

Beyond the cutting edge of art, she says, "we want work that is really bleeding edge."

In Buffalo, in the aftermath of the bioterror probe that has found no terror, activist artists have scooped up the refuse from the Kurtz front yard and taken it away, perhaps, says da Costa, to create an art installation.

It paints a clearer picture, but still I see that when one pushes boundaries, lega, spiritual or cultural, one has to be prepared for backlash, legally, spiritually, or culturally.

Cynthetiq · 04-19-2005, 08:40 PM

this is some other interesting aspects to consider...

Quote:

working with wetware: ethics of artist-created and manipulated lifeforms
LINK
Are DNA and living systems legitimate art materials? In recent years, artists have been persuading scientists to let them into their labs to develop contemporary art practices using living biological systems, by altering genetic structures or even creating their own unique life forms.

Working with Wetware explores the work of artists who work directly with living biological systems. The panel includes: Steve Kurtz, founder of Critical Art Ensemble; Marta de Menezes, artist in residence at Imperial College School of Medicine and creator of artist-designed butterflies; Oran Catts from SymbioticA, a pioneer of tissue engineering for artistic practice; Gina Czarnecki who created the installation Silvers Alter for the CleanRooms exhibition; and Brandon Ballengee, CleanRooms artist in residence, whose artistic practice includes breeding rare frogs. The forum is chaired by Kodwo Eshun, writer and cultural commentator. >from *Working With Wetware*. June 20, 2003

Does genetically modifying something be considered art? Are the designers of genetically enhanced food/rats/mice artists instead of scientists? Dog breeders are they artists? Based on this symposium they are... and not too far a stretch from someone manufacturing mustard gas and calling it art. "Ebola? Oh that's art, I'm protected by the First Amendment."

I think I see why this is an issue...

lurkette · 04-20-2005, 05:46 AM

I fail to understand how what he was doing constitutes "bioterrorism" unless there's some evidence I missed that he planned to unleash some pathogen on the general public. If he had lawfully acquired the equipment and was using it in accordance with the law, what's the problem? Even if not, how is this in any way related to terrorism and not simply to unauthorized use of biomaterials?

Phage · 04-20-2005, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette

I fail to understand how what he was doing constitutes "bioterrorism" unless there's some evidence I missed that he planned to unleash some pathogen on the general public. If he had lawfully acquired the equipment and was using it in accordance with the law, what's the problem? Even if not, how is this in any way related to terrorism and not simply to unauthorized use of biomaterials?

I don't think he was actually charged with bioterrorism; people saw his rather interesting equipment and notified the authorities who investigated for bioterrorism, and then ended up charging him with other things. I guess bioterrorism is just much more interesting for the media to crow about. Hey, I like saying bioterrorism too.

/bioterrorism

lurkette · 04-20-2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phage

I don't think he was actually charged with bioterrorism; people saw his rather interesting equipment and notified the authorities who investigated for bioterrorism, and then ended up charging him with other things. I guess bioterrorism is just much more interesting for the media to crow about. Hey, I like saying bioterrorism too.

/bioterrorism

It is a catchy word

The whole thing confuses me. I think I'll go have some ice cream.

04-19-2005, 01:13 PM	#2 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	Goddamn John Ashcroft Where do Republicans find these Attorneys general (John Mitchell, Edwin Meese, John Ashcroft)? Under rocks? Spend my taxes making my airlines safer. link __________________ less I say, smarter I am

04-19-2005, 01:56 PM	#4 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	We know these folks. Well, even... I have no sympathy. Life isn't a game. You play with fire, etc. __________________ create evolution

04-19-2005, 02:21 PM	#6 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Won't go further into our relationship. But I have knowledge of this group's work. They like to skirt the line of what is "acceptable" and even legal, IMO. I also see them as academics playing ivory-tower games. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who cry when the society they love to infuriate comes down on them. Kurtz' bio-aesthetic work is potentially dangerous for many reasons. Again, this is my opinion. I make art-as-life judgements, as is my wont. He got caught up in post-911 legalities because that is the world we all now live in - including artists. I also do not appreciate artists who work on the edge of societal acceptability complaining when they get into trouble. It's an attitude thing... __________________ create evolution

04-19-2005, 02:23 PM	#7 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	aaah i understand now. pushing the envelope and challenging the system and sometimes it pushes back. gotcha. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-19-2005, 02:30 PM	#8 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	i don't see any reasonable defense of the prosecution. regardless of if they have chosen to push boundaries, thei man is entitled to fair treatment by the law. there's no "i don't like your attitude" exemption to the 14th ammendment, or any of the other due process statutes. Art...i respect your knowledge of the situation, but it really does sound like you're making a defense of repression here. you don't ask why those are the boundaries, and why a governement might chose to prosecute people who chose to do this as art. those aren't givens. governments don't have to react like this...the art is, by statement, intended to raise questions about food saftey. Why would a government prosecute people who resist the commerical/industrial narrative of how food ought to be grown? Why would a government get involved in any of this? __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

04-19-2005, 01:50 PM	#3 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	Wow, this is pretty bad. http://www.caedefensefund.org/CAE_Artforum.jpg

04-19-2005, 02:43 PM	#9 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	They can take it to court, and they are. Let the legal system decide. That's what the process is for. I simply have no sympathy. And I also have no interest in the public outcry. __________________ create evolution

04-19-2005, 06:14 PM	#10 (permalink)
Phage Insane	I don't think there is enough information here for any sort of discussion. The writer does not make any attempt to remain unbiased, attacking the validity of the law and spontaniously jumping to subjects like the Patriot Act in an attempt to justify his/her outrage. This is not surprising considering the source of the information, but it indicates to me too much of a slant to decide anything at this point. The Critical Art Ensemble does not try to hide their opposition to the current administration, and it looks like one of their members decided that they could break the law just because they did not agree with it. Well I say too bad; you can criticise all you want but you still have to obey the laws. Besides, it is not up to those enforcing the law to decide if they want to prosecute violations they find. As ARTelevision said, it is up to the legal system to decide on the constitutionality of the laws, the validity of the method of evidence gathering, and the guilt of those charged. Propaganda about his innocence will only stand in the way of that.

04-19-2005, 06:48 PM	#12 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Wait, I'm confused: What did he actually do wrong?

04-19-2005, 07:46 PM	#13 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	He didnt do anything wrong from what i can gather. But that doesnt seem to matter. __________________ We Must Dissent.

04-20-2005, 05:46 AM	#17 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I fail to understand how what he was doing constitutes "bioterrorism" unless there's some evidence I missed that he planned to unleash some pathogen on the general public. If he had lawfully acquired the equipment and was using it in accordance with the law, what's the problem? Even if not, how is this in any way related to terrorism and not simply to unauthorized use of biomaterials? __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France