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."

Terror is winning

[Anonymous Coward]

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

how did he commit fraud?

[timmarhy]

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

Sounds about right

[FoolsGold]

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.

Like that "Hoax device" BS.

[Etherwalk]

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?

Re:how did he commit fraud?

[Xonstantine]

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

Re:Terror is winning

[TarPitt]

Power without ethics IS terrorism

Re:Mail Fraud eh?

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:how did he commit fraud?

[ivan256]

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?

Re:Terror is winning

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This is why the US is falling behind

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This story is very very very very very very old

[HoboMonkey]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[kamapuaa]

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.

Re:how did he commit fraud?

[Christopher_Edwardz]

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.

Depends on a context.

[megaditto]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[QuantumG]

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

Re:Terror is winning

[Skreems]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[davetd02]

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 [wikipedia.org].

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." [atcc.org] 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.

Re:how did he commit fraud?

[misanthrope101]

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?

Re:This is why the US is falling behind

[langelgjm]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[BorgDrone]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[haeger]

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

Re:WTF

[15Bit]

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.

Re:This is why the US is falling behind

[RAMMS+EIN]

``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.

So they won then

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?

Re:Terror is winning

[rs79]

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.

Re:how did he commit fraud?

[Phroon]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[Frantactical Fruke]

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.

Something of Interest from the defense website

[butlerdi]

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 ...

No joking allowed

[dpbsmith]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[BlackSabbath]

"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.

Re:Terror is winning

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Terror is winning

[kevinbr]

"......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.

Re:Terror is winning

[dwarfking]

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.

Re:He asked for it....

[the eric conspiracy]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[Lars T.]

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.

Why privacy is important

[lymond01]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Re:No joking allowed

[sheldon]

You must be new to Soviet Russia.

Re:Terror is winning

[WNight]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[sheldon]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[Venik]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[funkyloki]

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.

Re:Terror is winning

[Sciros]

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.