| Pages:
1
2 |
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
In retrospect, no one has mentioned the Feinstein bill in the USA. In this Senate bill - distributing "Bomb Making" information in written, verbal,
or electronic form to those who would use said information in a criminal context is a crime in itself. Free speech issue? No, from that context it
would be crying "fire" in a theater. Something about the "war on terror" has been successful; the terrorists can claim success in our making these
repressive laws.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
The UK couple is accused of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. So in order to obtain a conviction the US attorney in Arizona must prove to a
jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the couple discussed or otherwise communicated with one or more persons in Arizons, the making of methamphetamine,
and that at least one party to the conspiracy committed an overt act to complete the conspiracy.
Merely selling RP and/or I2 to a mail order customer and nothing more would not constitute a conspiracy.
Within the US, lab suppliers have legal obligations and face stiff fines and jail terms for failing to comply with those obligations. However, there
is no way that vendors outside of the US who are not US citizens or residents could be held to those obligations, and anyway that is not the crime
being alleged.
It may well be a US federal crime to ship RP by post or common carrier without proper declaration as a flammable solid (DOT or USPS rules) but that's
not what these folks are accused of, and probably could not form the basis of an extradition.
What they are charged with is a crime in the UK as well as the US. I have not studied the bilateral extradition arrangement between the US and Great
Britain but, often that is a requirement in such arrangements.
A conspiracy can't be conducted by telepathy.
Most likely DEA has a co-conspirator who will testify as to the conspiracy (probably in return for a plea bargain.) Or they may have senbt in an
undercover agent to purchase RP and discuss whatever will be alleged to be the elements of the conspiracy.
Merely having books or documents that included meth preparations or having knowledge of what RP and/or I2 might be used for is not a conspiracy. There
HAS to be an Arizona conspirator, who is probably now a rat. Maybe he was already a rat when he first contacted these people.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Diane Feinstein, Senator from the People's Democratic Republic of California? The only state that has a red star in its flag (and a bear.)
Super liberal Ms Feinstein.
Enemy of the First Amendment.
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
"The Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 (MCA) makes it unlawful for any person to distribute a laboratory supply to a person who uses,
or attempts to use, that laboratory supply to manufacture a controlled substance or a listed chemical, with reckless disregard for the illegal uses to
which such laboratory supply will be put."
There are a number of rules that are supposed to be followed for importation of list 1 chemicals. That these rules were willfully ignored by these
people is a strong case for conspiracy itself.
There is plenty of precedent for charging and convicting chemical distributors. People who sell chemicals that are found at a number of sites get
charged, even if they don't sell to individuals, like Science Alliance. It's about punishing those who flaunt the DEA by adhering to their rules yet
still end up getting listed chemicals into the hands of the people (and a number of companies have lost their licences to distribute pseudoephedrine
and ephedrine solely because they sell a lot of it to non-drugstore retailers, and I would expect this and other threats to be held over anyone with
licences to sell listed chems) and having a chilling effect on those considering such trade.
I've seen many people say on various sites that sales of certain chems cannot be stopped because of profit motive or commonness. IMHO these people are
morons.
|
|
|
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1332
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
Conspiracy
That's how Strike got busted by both Arizona and the feds. As for Sauron's statement
about Feinstein, I couldn't agree more. She's the Wicked Bitch Of The West Coast.
If there was ever a politician that deserves to be hanged for treason, it's her. She was
pulling her shit on U.S. citizens long before Bush & Co. came onto the scene. As for the
couple from the U.K., if they're extradited to Arizona, they'll likely end up as permanent
guests at the government's SuperMax facility in Colorado. There's no such thing as a
fair trial on drug charges in the U.S.. It's guilt by accusation.
From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
@S.C., they are charged with conspiracy to manufacture not with selling listed chemicals.
Totally different burden of proof for the prosecution.
However to be fair, I would say that if they were charged under those CMCA requirements that the govt would have little trouble getting a jury to buy
off on "reckless disregard".
I think the govt may have a tougher time with conspiracy to manufacture.
Of course if they have a "co-conspirator" who is rolling over on them to save his own skin and will say anything on the witness stand then this couple
is in deep trouble.
Same old story, easy money, hard time.
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
@S.C., they are charged with conspiracy to manufacture not with selling listed chemicals. |
Says who? Have you read the indictment? The word "conspiracy" does not exist on the DEA page, yet it clearly mentions "unlawful importation and
distribution of regulated chemicals".
Furthermore, it would not at all surprise me that a conspiracy conviction could be obtained for the reason that I gave earlier. You might as well try
to tell me that selling phenyl-2-propanone to anyone who wants it, and to people who actually did use it to make drugs, could not constitute a
conspiracy to manufacture amphetamine/methamphetamine. Do they have to hold a gun to the head of the buyers and say "make meth or else" in order to be
convicted of conspiracy?
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
There's no such thing as an implied criminal conspiracy.
To meet the long established tests of criminal conspiracy law, the UK couple would have had to sit down agree to make methamphetamine with whoever the
AZ end of this thing is. Or do so by some other form of communication.
A criminal conspiracy is a hard thing to prove because by its nature it's secret. That is why few prosecutors ever alledge criminal conspiracy unless
they have a co-conspirator as a witness ready to testify directly as to the conspiracy and point a finger.
P2P is a controlled susbstance now isn't it? RP is not, Iodine is not. Let's keep apples and oranges segregated.
The importation is an act committed by an importer. The Brit couple were not the importer, they were the foreign seller.
And in their country the sale was not a crime.
I can assure you they won't be tried in the DEA website, they will be tried in the US district sourt in southern district of Arizona. The US Criminal
Code is what applies and not the scribblings of some DEA publicist.
No I haven' read the indictent and neither have you, I'll warrant. I am proceeding entirely on the basis of what's been reported in this thread. Have
you read the terms of the US/UK extradition agreement? No neither have I but normally, no one can be extradited from his own country for something not
a crime in his own country. If selling RP and I2 is legal in the UK, then that is not what these people are being extradited for.
Conspiracy to manufacture an illegal drug is illegal in the UK and methamphetamine is illegal in both countries.
|
|
|
ilBABAUUuuu
Unregistered
Posts: N/A
Registered: N/A
Member Is Offline
|
|
So is cannabis.But here 770 plants=200 hours community service.
The concept of freedom is separated by... an Ocean?
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
The Feinstein Bill:
http://cryptome.org/bombmake.htm
Actually PASSED and is now law. The actual federal law is a very poorly written piece of legislation. HOWEVER, it was designed to pad the
prosecution's case for a serious situation wherein the perp had picked up their info from a source that published the material to further a criminal
action. A tough thing to bring to trial in-and-of-itself.
We could talk about energetic materials all day but unless we got into a situation that is WAY past the guidelines of this forum; it's not even close
to the Bill's targets.
But regarding the 1st ammendment issues, it's an attempt at "screaming fire in a theater" legislation. In that people would be harmed by the said
material, etc. Remember this is from the same person that carried a handgun but didn't want anyone else to be able to do so. Kalifornia: what a
zoo....!
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Nobody said Diane isn't a hypocrite.
Anyway the problem with stupid laws like this is that they are a slippery slope.
This year, maybe the interpretation/implementation is narrow as you say.
Next year maybe someone goes to jail for giving away The Chemistry of Powder & Explosives online as an e-book. Hey. That could be us.
If you think this is far fetched, consider the way the RICO laws have been used. These were intended to go after Organized Crime (the Mafia). Now they
are applied anytime a prosecutor wants to strip an accused of his constritutional rights, for example, his right to attorney of his choice. Most RICO
defensants now are not traditional OCR (Mafia) figures at all.
Or the totally unconstitutional civil forfeiture bullshit. Another prime example.
Over time the intent of the lawmakers is ignored and the aggrandizement and political ambitions of self serving prosecutors is paramount.
Rudy Guliani started out os a prosecutor. So did Tom Dewy and in the same city.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
So you like the idea of Thought Police?
I prefer fresh free air instead of the claustrophobic stink of repression.
Those who are willing to trade some of their freedom for illusiory security will soon have neither.
|
|
|
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1332
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
Civil Fortfeiture
That's among the worst laws ever written. The burden of proof is on the owner of
whatever, usually cash, to prove that it wasn't obtained as a result of a criminal act.
As for that hypocrite bitch, Feinstein, in the move "Wayne's World", Wayne described his
psychotic, wannabe girfriend as a "mental hose beast". That describes Feinstein at least
at a minimal level don't you think ? When will people stop electing stupid people who
write stupid laws ?
From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Not just cash. Cars, houses, boats, airplanes, land. Often the confiscating officers are local yokels and the proceeds are (legally) divided up
between the local dept and a DEA slush fund that defrays the cost of the war on drugs. All this of course is long before 9/11
There's mo criminal charge required, merely the assertion by "trained narcotics investigators" that the monies or property were proceeds of drug
trafficking or were going to be used for the purpose of drug trafficking.
60 Minutes did an expose on this a while back. They interviewed a charter airline owner who was hired to fly a middle aged guy from somewhere to
somewhere else, the guy looked like a banker. At the destination DEA was waiting, the guy was a drug dealer. The airline owner lost his airplane!
In same episode Ed Bradlee went to the airport and bought a ticket with cash. Within a few minutes he was accosted by a pair of local cops and
questioned as to what he was doing. It seems the airline counter staff are told to report anyone who pays by cash, as suspicious. Maybe they get a
reward if the cops make a civil forfeiture.
In same episode a middle aged black guy who was a tree nursery owner was flying to do business, paid for ticket in cash. He had a few hundred dollars
on him. The cops showed up (again he was ratted on by the airline staff) and confiscated his cash. No criminal record, no arrest, no crime committed.
It's the Sherrif of Nottingham's men robbing the people. So much for due process. So much for the Bill of Rights. That's why I prefer to live in a
country that does not pretend that I have any rights, rather than one that has come to make a mockery of the spirit of the Founding Fathers. Here,
your "rights" depend on who you are, who you know, and how affluent you are.
|
|
|
guy
National Hazard
Posts: 982
Registered: 14-4-2004
Location: California, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Catalytic!
|
|
Goddamn, meth makers ruin it for everyone. The meth labs look like my lab. If my neighbors ever saw my lab (its in the garage), theyd probably
report me. If you look at the Operation Red Dragon report, they have pictures of Red Devil Lye everywhere. THis really pisses me off.
We need the soapmakers to protest the ban of Red Devil!
[Edited on 2/7/2007 by guy]
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
And Red Devil is a long time household brand of lye. What will they go after next, Drano?
It's ridiculous.
It's like arguing "All the clandestine labs have running water and electricity so the public utilities must be in cahoots with the"
It's the same illogic.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Your preaching to the chior with the "slippery slope" concept. Personally I believe that it will be either a long time OR some significant event that
will push the US in an even more severly repressive direction. Some would say that we are there now but I think they can't enforce the depth of the
constaints enacted with the limited law enforment elements available so they are forced to be more rational.
This however creates a problem in arbitrary enforcement. - I have often said that I am quite Libertairian in my views so personally I don't care for
these laws at all but they do exist...what gauls me is the arbitrary and capriecious nature of the enforcement - - One guy get slammed for 3 lbs of
red P, another guy can sell a whole tableting machine with no problem....all because they have limited manpower. The shit will hit the fan if they
start in with mass deputization of National Guard troops to expand the work of law enforcement. but that would take a terror strike to accomplish. And
at that point I doubt the target would be meth labs.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7977
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
And Red Devil is a long time household brand of lye. What will they go after next, Drano?
It's ridiculous.
It's like arguing "All the clandestine labs have running water and electricity so the public utilities must be in cahoots with the"
It's the same illogic. |
What they are doing here is not taking products from the shelves, but modifying existing products, such that they still serve the purpose they are
made for, but are not (or at least less) suitable for other (mis)uses.
So, if this would happen a lot over here, then the lye products would remain, but they would mix in lots of other toxic crap, such that it is not
suitable anymore for meth-cooking.
An example of this is the hydrochloric acid we have over here. The main use of hydrochloric acid is cleaning of walls, bricks and that kind of things.
Since a short time, the acid is loaded with colored stuff, before that it was perfectly colorless. It still serves the purpose of cleaning,
chalk-removing, but it cannot be used anymore for misuse like making AP. But the bad side effect is that it also is useless for chemistry
experimenting  .
|
|
|
guy
National Hazard
Posts: 982
Registered: 14-4-2004
Location: California, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Catalytic!
|
|
The way I see it, if you get rid of the Red P and I2, why else would you need to get rid of NaOH??!! Its ridiculous.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by guy
The way I see it, if you get rid of the Red P and I2, why else would you need to get rid of NaOH??!! Its ridiculous. |
In carpentry:
When framing a structure, why only square one wall? Make all the walls square and you have less to concern yourself with when adding a roof.
In point of fact one of the biggest companies in this agenda of "ridding our shelves of horrible chemicals" had been a company known as Home Depot.
The story there is an interesting one. If it is true or not it still makes a certain sense.
What I was told was that someone on the board of directors had a relative who told them of searching the internet and reading of that company's name
connected with availability of certain items. This board member then took steps to remove some items and contacted other companies who produced some
items directly and told them of the "bad press". This is exactly why it never a good idea to mention sources directly when discussing anything that
may be mis-construed in a negitive context.
[Edited on 8-2-2007 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
garage chemist
chemical wizard
Posts: 1803
Registered: 16-8-2004
Location: Germany
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What is this:
http://www.thechemicalshop.com/index.asp?function=DISPLAYCAT...
Look at the description on Phosphorus! Ripped straight from Bromics page.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7977
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
Is this chemicalshop the same as kno3.com?
The website of kno3.com is taken offline, it is no more .
I have severe doubts that ordering from chemicalshop will lead to anything useful. It may even lead to additional attential from certain agencies.
|
|
|
tupence_hapeny
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 25-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: continuing respiration (touch wood)
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
The UK couple is accused of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. So in order to obtain a conviction the US attorney in Arizona must prove to a
jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the couple discussed or otherwise communicated with one or more persons in Arizons, the making of methamphetamine,
and that at least one party to the conspiracy committed an overt act to complete the conspiracy.
Merely selling RP and/or I2 to a mail order customer and nothing more would not constitute a conspiracy.
Within the US, lab suppliers have legal obligations and face stiff fines and jail terms for failing to comply with those obligations. However, there
is no way that vendors outside of the US who are not US citizens or residents could be held to those obligations, and anyway that is not the crime
being alleged.
It may well be a US federal crime to ship RP by post or common carrier without proper declaration as a flammable solid (DOT or USPS rules) but that's
not what these folks are accused of, and probably could not form the basis of an extradition.
What they are charged with is a crime in the UK as well as the US. I have not studied the bilateral extradition arrangement between the US and Great
Britain but, often that is a requirement in such arrangements.
A conspiracy can't be conducted by telepathy.
Most likely DEA has a co-conspirator who will testify as to the conspiracy (probably in return for a plea bargain.) Or they may have senbt in an
undercover agent to purchase RP and discuss whatever will be alleged to be the elements of the conspiracy.
Merely having books or documents that included meth preparations or having knowledge of what RP and/or I2 might be used for is not a conspiracy. There
HAS to be an Arizona conspirator, who is probably now a rat. Maybe he was already a rat when he first contacted these people. |
You are right Sauron, insofar as telepathy is not a valid basis from which to infer an unlawful agreement to commit an act, however, an actual
contract to supply a combination of items (being a combination of items from the mere possession or purchase of which intent to manufacture can be
inferred - such as RP & I2) to a person in the relevant location (being a location to which such laws apply or pertain) is more than capable of
providing the factual scenario necessary to support such an inference (after all, a completed contract is in fact an agreement per se, is it not?).
As ignorance of the law excuses nobody, it is truly irrelevant whether they are citizens of the area in which their actions constituted an offence or
an agreement to commit an offence - provided they are amenable to justice in that jurisdiction (ie. provided they are able to be tried or extradited
so they can be).
Believe it or not, they are fucked. In fact, their very best chance lies in the fact that the DEA, like most investigative bodies around the planet,
tends to collect it's evidence for major prosecutions by running 'stings' based upon intelligence (NB the term is used advisedly) gained from deals
struck with other individuals as captured, especially during interrogation. The flaw in which is that it is possible (and plausible - just) to argue
that your client (hopefully not yourself) entered into the illegal contract only at the insistence of another, being the DEA agent fronting the sting,
and not at their own volition. The leading Australian case on this is Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 129 ALR 41. In this case it was held that evidence of a conspiracy to import multiple hundreds of kilograms of heroin
could not be used, as the conspiracy was entered into solely at the urging of a member of the executive. But simply, the ends do not justify the
means, members of the executive (such as the DEA) have no business breaking the law, and cannot use any evidence from such acts to prosecute their
co-conspirators.
We are all the sum of our experiences, and our reactions to the same
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Where is the dividing line from agent provocateurs and investigative questioning? This seems the essence of the issue. To determine if someone
(example) is a terrorist, they may be asked if they are willing to engage in terroristic activities. However the modality of that questioning is
critical to getting at the truth.
"As a member of Law Enforcement I was wondering if you would like to place a Nerve Agent in a local tube...?"
-=OR=-
"These British Imperialists have corrupted all that is Good. We must strike a blow at their black hearts. What ideas have you?"
|
|
|
tupence_hapeny
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 25-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: continuing respiration (touch wood)
|
|
Not a line that will ever be successfully or even totally clearly drawn or defined. The basic principle comes down to 'who instigated the act' and
whether the actions taken pursuant to that instigation were sufficiently 'voluntary' to satisfy the legal requirements of 'intent'.
The reason why the line will never be successfully drawn or defined is because, like so many lines in law, it shifts. For instance, if I suddenly from
penury somehow come into several million dollars, which good fortune cannot be explained except by reference to my 'INDUSTRIAL' size glassware - a
police officer can probably use the evidence collected as a result of asking me to manufacture an illicit substance (although, on the flip-side, I
will have a raft of barristers and legal experts working as a team - so the likelihood of this surviving appeal is low - classic case, the brother in
law of the Qld Attorney-General was indicted in a sting regarding the importation of TONS of Cocaine & attempting to bribe a Cth Police Officer -
the finding of guilt was overturned on the basis that police did not have a warrant to STEAL the $2 worth of electricity used by their bugs: Coco v
The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427).
On the other hand, if a person can demonstrate that they sold RP to another person - in the form of flares which they had no reason to know they were
not entitled to sell - only at the suggestion of that person and it turns out that person was a police officer - there is little chance the evidence
will be admissable, particularly if the charge is a serious one.
However, I offer a major caveat to this, legislatures around the world continue to appoint judges which lean further and further to the right. In
fact, from a jaundiced veiwpoint - it may even be suggested that judicial independence is a facade and judges that don't make decisions which accord
with the wishes of the legislature have a correspondingly short curial career. I would like to dispell this suggestion, yet I cannot.
We are all the sum of our experiences, and our reactions to the same
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
