RE: Bic-Assassins Convicted (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 20:41:24 -0500
> From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
> Subject: RE: Bic-Assassins Convicted (fwd)

> Jim Choate asked:
> 
> >If they had threatened just a plain old citizen with this 
> >email would they also be facing this life imprisonment?
> 
> Apparently the charges would have been the same if made 
> against any 
> 
>   "person within the United States, and the results of such 
>   use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case 
>   of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected 
>   interstate or foreign commerce." (see below)

Ok, exactly how would their threat effect inter-state commerce?

> The use of E-mail was incidental to the charges of both 
> conspiracy and threatening to use weapons of mass destruction:
> 
>   18:2332(a)(2) and (c)(2)(C). Conspiracy to use a weapon 
>   of mass destruction against person(s) w/in the U.S. 
>   the results of which affected interstate & foreign 
>   commerce.  Offense dates:  3/24/98 - 6/30/98.  Penalty:  
>   Any term of years or for life, $250,000, 5 yrs SRT.  (1)

Conspiracy requires active steps, not simply talking about it. As I
understand it the conspiracy and weapons of mass destructions charges were
given a not-guilty by the jury. No proof was presented that they had ever
even bought a bic lighter to test with. Hell, even going to the bookstore
and buying a book or the library and checking one out is protected under the
Constitution. It takes more than talk to generate a conspiracy.

>   18:2332a(a)(2) and (c)(2)(C) and 2.  Threatening to use a
>   weapon of mass destruction. Offense date:  6/26/98
>   Penalty:  any term of years or Proceedings include all events.
>   for life, $250,000, 5 yrs SRT as to ea ct. (2 - 8)

If we're going to go by this then the US government is already guilty re
their plan to destroy various contraband plants via genetic weapons. If you
think that won't effect inter-state & international commerce you better
think again.

And they've gone a lot farther than just talking about it in email. Congress
has spent millions on it over the last few years.

> The eight counts are for the one count of conspiracy and
> threats against seven federal agencies ("employees and
> families"):
> 
>   The President
>   ATF
>   FBI
>   DEA
>   IRS
>   Secret Service
>   Custom Service

Ok, so my question still stands what if these had been actual people instead
of government agencies? The charges are *NOT* for threatening individuals
who happen to be government agents, oh no, they're for threatening
government *agencies* a whole different ball game ('The President' is an
office not a person).

> CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM
> 
> Sec. 2332a. Use of weapons of mass destruction
> 
>  (a) Offense Against a National of the United States or Within the
> United States. - A person who, without lawful authority, uses,
> threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass
> destruction, including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as
> those terms are defined in section 178) -

Where is 'lawful authority' defined?

>    (2) against any person within the United States, and the
>   results of such use affect interstate or foreign commerce or, in
>   the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected
>   interstate or foreign commerce;

I covered this one already.

>  (c) Definitions. - For purposes of this section -
> 
>    (2) the term ''weapon of mass destruction'' means -
> 
>       (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this
>      title;
> 
>       (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or
>      serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or
>      impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
> 
>       (C) any weapon involving a disease organism; or

So if I go out and sneeze on somebody I've committed an attack using a
weapon of mass destruction?

>       (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or
>      radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.

Where is the definition of 'mass' in there? Hell, just about anything
qualifies under this definition. It doesn't even require the death of 1
single individual (it doesn't even require it to be lethal).

Oh, *all* radiation is harmful to human life.

> CHAPTER 10 - BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
> Sec. 178. Definitions
> 
>   As used in this chapter -
> 
>     (1) the term ''biological agent'' means any micro-organism,
>   virus, infectious substance, or biological product that may be
>   engineered as a result of biotechnology, or any naturally
>   occurring or bioengineered component of any such microorganism,
>   virus, infectious substance, or biological product, capable of
>   causing -
> 
>       (A) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a
>     human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;

Well this certainly covers each and every effect of a pathogen on a
biological system (I particularly like the way they've covered their butts
for ET.... 'another living organism'. Not to mention that cleaning your
kitchen counter qualifies under this statute.

>       (B) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or
>     material of any kind; or
> 
>       (C) deleterious alteration of the environment;

Well at least they've set themselves up for their anti-drug pathogen
program.

>     (2) the term ''toxin'' means the toxic material of plants,

Can you say circular defintion, I thought you could. This sentence say
nothing.

>   animals, microorganisms, viruses, fungi, or infectious
>   substances, or a recombinant molecule, whatever its origin or
>   method of production, including -
> 
>       (A) any poisonous substance or biological product that may be
>     engineered as a result of biotechnology produced by a living
>     organism; or
> 
>       (B) any poisonous isomer or biological product, homolog, or
>     derivative of such a substance;

This of course happens to cover plain old water (re 'whatever its origin or
method of preduction').

>     (3) the term ''delivery system'' means -
> 
>       (A) any apparatus, equipment, device, or means of delivery
>     specifically designed to deliver or disseminate a biological
>     agent, toxin, or vector; or
> 
>       (B) any vector;
> 
>     (4) the term ''vector'' means a living organism, or molecule,
>   including a recombinant molecule, or biological product that may
>   be engineered as a result of biotechnology, capable of carrying a
>   biological agent or toxin to a host; and

Next time I get food-poisoning at a restaraunt it's comforting to know that
the federal government will be right there to prosecute under this
particular statute...

Geesh.


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
       To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice.

                                                     Confucius

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 08:42 PM 11/2/98 -0600, Jim Choate wrote, though not in this order:
>>  (c) Definitions. - For purposes of this section -
>>    (2) the term ''weapon of mass destruction'' means - [...]
>>       (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or
>>      serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or
>>      impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
>>       (C) any weapon involving a disease organism; or
...
>Where is the definition of 'mass' in there? Hell, just about anything
>qualifies under this definition. It doesn't even require the death of 1
>single individual (it doesn't even require it to be lethal).

My reading is the same as yours -
the law was written carelessly, and wrong (unless JYA forgot the paragraph defining
"mass" as "intended to kill more than N people", but it doesn't look like it.)
That means that any chemical weapon, including your can of mace or pepper spray,
that might be construed as causing "serious bodily injury",
makes you a terrorist using weapons of mass destruction.
Might get worse - lead _is_ toxic, and causes injury by impact.
It's a bad law, and it's going to be abused, and this case is 
a great one for the Feds to use to set bad precedent with,
since the Republic of Texas are a bunch of incompetent wackos.

>> CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM
>> Sec. 2332a. Use of weapons of mass destruction
>>  (a) Offense Against a National of the United States or Within the
>> United States. - A person who, without lawful authority, uses,
>> threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass
>> destruction, including any biological agent, toxin, or vector (as
>> those terms are defined in section 178) -
>
>Where is 'lawful authority' defined?

Not sure, but it means that the Feds aren't terrorists if _they_
threaten or conspire to use weapons of mass destruction,
but you would be if you did.  It also probably means that 
foreign governments aren't covered here, but foreign NGOs are,
e.g. the IRA.

>> interstate commerce
The standard clause used to give the Feds jurisdiction over things;
given Roosevelt-era courts deciding that a farmer feeding his own grain
to his own hogs affects interstate commerce, surely email or the
World Wide Web counts as interstate, as does killing anybody
who might cross state lines or buy some product that does.
(Of course, given the number of politicians who are for sale,
removing a few of them from the market can pretty legitimately
be called affecting interstate commerce :-)



				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639