| Pages:
1
2
3 |
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust  | | I don't know about state law, but the U.S. federal criminal charge for possessing red phosphorus is actually "Possession of red phosphorus with intent
to manufacture methamphetamine." That means they still have to prove "intent." From what I've read, it sounds like the Howes are being charged with
conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, which is a lot worse. |
The two conspiracy counts only involve
sales, not manufacture.
"Intent" here means the intent of the vendor, not the intent of the customer. It means that if party A has possession, then it's party A's intent to
manufacture that counts. The Howes couple were certainly not manufacturing themselves, and there's no allegation that they intended to.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
Yes, your stated? aversion to the act of 'getting high'; vexing and perplexing, as it is, in equal measure!
Here! Take this. . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apCw_qdyfkQ&annotation_id...
[Edited on 18-11-2009 by hissingnoise]
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by entropy51 | | You forgot the most important reason(4) They think it's a good thing to cut off supplies to some of the dope cooks
|
This is just another version of my reason (1) above, albeit stated a bit more generally.
The question here is not "Is methamphetamine good or bad?". The question here is one of weighing values. We have two possible situations which we have
to weigh against each other. The first is that a vendor of phosphorus and iodine is extradited in an affront to the international rule of law. The
second is that their sales continue and the principles of law are upheld. The question is "Do you value justice more or less that the suppression of
drugs?"
Simply doing the "right thing" for society while taking short cuts around the law is a minor form of tyranny. In the full forms of tyranny, they
ignore the law altogether. Taking shortcuts is the first step on that desolate road from minor tyranny to major.
I practice the second chance principle in these cases, where someone has inveighed against some harm without considering the consequences, without
making a proper assessment of value, comparing two things with each other. Taking one thing in isolation is the standard practice of demagogues, and I
cannot assume that the first such utterance out of someone is so intended.
So, entropy51, which do you value more: the stability of international law or suppression of meth manufacture in Arizona?
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
Would you argue in favor of the stability of international law if the situation were a company having ties to terrorist
organizations shipping nerve agent precursors into the US or some other country? Would you argue against the right of that country to defend itself by
arresting those responsible, even if the laws of the originating country had not been breeched?
I think the two situations are completely analagous, differing perhaps only in the numbers of innocent lives destroyed. It is all well and nice to
argue the sanctity of international law, but the harm done cannot be ignored.
I believe the kno3.com folks are having their day in court, as they are entitled to.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by entropy51 | Would you argue in favor of the stability of international law if the situation were a company having ties to terrorist
organizations shipping nerve agent precursors into the US or some other country? Would you argue against the right of that country to defend itself by
arresting those responsible, even if the laws of the originating country had not been breeched?
I think the two situations are completely analagous, differing perhaps only in the numbers of innocent lives destroyed. It is all well and nice to
argue the sanctity of international law, but the harm done cannot be ignored.
I believe the kno3.com folks are having their day in court, as they are entitled to. |
You answer my question
first, which you have not yet.
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
I do not think it's a case of the stability of international law versus the suppression of dope cooks. You act as if the whole system will come
crashing down if these miscreants are extradited. As I said, they are having their day in court and I believe British law will settle the issue one
way or the other. Sounds like you would have them entitled to appeal to some international court in the Hague, if not the UN security council.
Your question implies that we can only have one or the other. Bull doots.
|
|
|
GordonBrown
Harmless
Posts: 6
Registered: 22-10-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Here is an under cover call with Don Sherard DEA who was responsible for operation Red dragon.
Link to call
Red Phosphorus was only one of 50 chemicals and they speak of stock in the UK sold worldwide not shipped to the US.
|
|
|
JohnWW
International Hazard
Posts: 2849
Registered: 27-7-2004
Location: New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Here are some further links regarding Brian Howes, in addition to http://extradition.org.uk and http://extradition.org.uk/category/brian-howes and http://extradition.org.uk/2008/09/08/ :
http://www.howes.uk.net
http://www.brianhowes.co.uk and http://www.brianhowes.co.uk/wordpress
http://www.brian-howes.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brianhowes
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/law-order-kenny-maca...
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/tags/brian-howes and http://gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2009/06/26/ and http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/tags/brian-howes
http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56439 and http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27741
http://taking-liberties.net/index.html
http://kno3.com/articles.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhaKRcKH-v4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J-qftHGX9E
http://www.petition.co.uk/howes_family_extradition_fight_ple... and http://www.petitiononline.com/howesbri/petition.html
http://thechemicalshop.co.uk/nickcleggmp.html
http://brianhowes.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html and http://brianhowes.blogspot.com
http://basechemical.com/index.html
http://www.cleveland-police.com/tag/brian-howes and http://www.cleveland-police.org/legalaidboard.html and http://www.cleveland-police.com/2007/11
http://twitter.com/Brian_Howes
http://blogs.myspace.com/brian_howes
http://un2014.co.uk/2003extraditionact.html
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/extradition-howes and http://wordpress.com/tag/extradition-howes
http://un1350.co.uk/dailyvideodiary05018.html
http://www.rubynia.ro/Brian_Howes
See also the links concerning the similar (and long-running) case of Gary MacKinnon which I posted on page 1 of this thread, along with arguments that
both parties could use against unfair extradition to face trial on the corruptly and politically inspired charges before the European Court Of Human
Rights. However, while the European Court would have due regard to the international law regarding human rights (which I mentioned in my previous
post), along with the English Bill Of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta 1215, it is unlikely that they could use the U$ Constitution in that Court,
particularly the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments, because it normally applies only in Court cases before U$ Courts on U$ territory.
|
|
|
GordonBrown
Harmless
Posts: 6
Registered: 22-10-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by entropy51 | Would you argue in favor of the stability of international law if the situation were a company having ties to terrorist
organizations shipping nerve agent precursors into the US or some other country? Would you argue against the right of that country to defend itself by
arresting those responsible, even if the laws of the originating country had not been breeched?
I think the two situations are completely analagous, differing perhaps only in the numbers of innocent lives destroyed. It is all well and nice to
argue the sanctity of international law, but the harm done cannot be ignored.
I believe the kno3.com folks are having their day in court, as they are entitled to. |
You all seem to forget that several agencies exist to stop goods that are not wanted in any particular country.
Customs the Police and several other agencies.
Also if the US wanted to stop the sales to the US, why not ask the chemicals that are not being misused in the UK to be restricted as other chemicals
are that KNO3.COM did not sell to the US.
Recently £20,000 worth of guns seized in the UK but the US seller has no responsibly even if mass murder happens.
Many people in the chemical industry in the UK are on bail pending charge and have been for over 2 years, The Howes case is a test case to see if US
law will be applied in the UK leaving everybody open to extradition.
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
| Quote: | You all seem to forget that several agencies exist to stop goods that are not wanted in any particular country.
Customs the Police and several other agencies. |
But the Customs system depends upon the identity of goods
being truthfully declared on the manifest, perhaps not the case here.
| Quote: | | Examples were given of United States law enforcement officers following up KNO3 orders to their destination in the United States and finding
methamphetamine labs with the chemicals sent by KNO3 in packages with false descriptions of their contents. |
Someone said upthread that the I2 was declared as "Iodine for medical use" and the red P as "red coloring" or some such.
|
|
|
GordonBrown
Harmless
Posts: 6
Registered: 22-10-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I suppose the US gun seller puts gun on his customs declaration did they when sending guns to the UK?
Iodine is for medical use.
RP was also for metal works.
Both of these chemicals are easily obtained in the US.
None are in the end product!
So do you think the UK can extradite US gun sellers?
Do you think the Italians should be able to extradite the CIA agents that did an illegal rendition?
Either the rule of law exists or it does not.
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
Sounds like your trying to force A simularity here Gordon. You have no idea what the US dealers put on the customs report nor do I so lets not
generalize something without full details.
| Quote: | | Both of these chemicals are easily obtained in the US. |
To who? Meth cooks that buy off of these people? I reiterate speaking without full knowledge of facts produces weak arguments.
Honestly I do feel that the UK should be able to extradite the gun dealers if they where proven knowingly tied to organized crime in the UK. Just as a
bit of thought for you, if a man in the UK was sending mail laced with anthrax to the US would you still have a grip about the UK allowing
extradition? As well if someone where doing the same to the UK from the US do you feel they should go without justice.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
| Quote: | | I suppose the US gun seller puts gun on his customs declaration did they when sending guns to the UK? |
I have
no idea, but if this violated UK law, I am in favor of extraditing them too. | Quote: | | RP was also for metal works |
Please explain what is "metal works" and how does it use Red P. | Quote: | | Both of these chemicals are easily obtained in the US. |
You sure about that? Red P, definitely not. You
have to sign for tincture of iodine, and sales are limited. There's very little I2 in it. | Quote: | | None are in the end product! |
I think you give the cooks too much credit regarding purification protocols.
Even if not, they are used in the manufacture of a dangerous, illegal drug. | Quote: | | So do you think the UK can extradite US gun sellers?Do you think the Italians should be able to extradite the CIA agents that did an illegal
rendition? |
Yes. Heck yes! | Quote: | | Either the rule of law exists or it does not |
Absolutely! That's the reason it's being decided in a Court of
Law! It exists. It will be decided by jurists with much more sense than you or I. If I had their sense, I wouldn't be here arguing with pimply
faced teenagers.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
I would presume for use with metal. Consider "phosphorus bronze", an alloy of copper and P. P is useful in a couple of alloys.
Why you'd want to do that yourself is beyond me. Phos bronze is commercially available, and I can't imagine trying to get a consistent product by
adding something as volatile as elemental phosphorus to molten copper.
Tim
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by JohnWW | | ....arguments that both parties could use against unfair extradition to face trial on the corruptly and politically inspired charges
|
Honestly, JohnWW, has anything ever been discussed here that you thought was not unfair,
corrupt, and politically inspired?
Treatment, paranoid fantasies, need.
[Edited on 19-11-2009 by entropy51]
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Politically in$pired? Come on, it'$ all about the dollar$ign$!
Tim
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by entropy51 | I do not think it's a case of the stability of international law versus the suppression of dope cooks. You act as if the whole system will come
crashing down if these miscreants are extradited. As I said, they are having their day in court and I believe British law will settle the issue one
way or the other. Sounds like you would have them entitled to appeal to some international court in the Hague, if not the UN security council.
Your question implies that we can only have one or the other. Bull doots. |
Two straw men and a second
evasion.
Straw man one: " the whole system will come crashing down if these miscreants are extradited". I've never said anything drastic like this. What I will
say forthrightly is that justice will be diminished if this extradition is carried out. "Crashing down" is a straw man. If it's your fear, your
projection onto me, please be good enough to admit it. I say this because the accused will have inadequate access to their own court system to rebut
the charges prior to their removal. The extradition treaty is the heart of the injustice, since it makes UK citizens accountable to US law, and UK
citizens have no representation in US democracy. The tables are turned here, it's now "extradition without representation", and the colony has become
the master. Little wonder that this treaty was signed, as it were, under our own King George.
Straw man two: I'm advocating some kind of higher legal power: "entitled to appeal to some international court". I've not said anything like this, not
even close. While I endeavor to write clearly, there's nothing I've said whose vocabulary even approaches this. It's a complete confabulation.
The evasion. Previously, I asked you a direct question about values. You did not answer, instead throwing questions back at. I asked you to answer the
question. You've posited straw men, and have evaded the question again. I ask you a second time, answer my question. entropy51, which do you value
more: the stability of international law or suppression of meth manufacture in Arizona?
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Sedit |
| Quote: | | Both of these chemicals are easily obtained in the US. |
To who? Meth cooks that buy off of these people? I reiterate speaking without full knowledge of facts produces weak arguments. |
In fact, they are easily available. They just aren't readily available without reporting and subsequent attention.
Personal story. The ex-girlfriend of an acquaintance of mine was recently busted for meth manufacture. The 'ex-' part of it was prior to these events,
fortunately for him. This woman mail-ordered a 55 gal. drum of red phosphorus and had it shipped. Yes, I verified that size with him when I first
heard it. There was an investigation, naturally, since the transaction was unusual. Duh. There was apparently no particular trouble just ordering up
the chemical. That's the availability issue.
It's important to distinguish between "availability" and "availability with no external cost". In the US, we have the first but not the second.
Dealing with an investigation, whether or not it results in law enforcement action, is most definitely an external cost, over and above the cost of
the goods themselves.
|
|
|
anotheronebitesthedust
Hazard to Others
Posts: 189
Registered: 24-6-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Entropy51:
| Quote: |
Would you argue in favor of the stability of international law if the situation were a company having ties to terrorist organizations shipping nerve
agent precursors into the US or some other country?
|
There is a clause in most extradition treaties which claims that dual criminality is necessary for extradition. I'm sure the U.S. would be able to
extradite someone who commits acts of terrorism, as long as there is evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_criminality
What if the exporter of the nerve agent precursor did not have terrorist ties? What if the exporter was actually a large export company that was
simply acting in accordance of it's own country's laws? What if the exporter made the importer sign a contract that the importer takes responsibility
for it's country's own laws?
We can sit here for days on end asking "What if" questions but the fact of the matter is that, as scientists, we know that we cannot be comparing one
chemical to another chemical. We cannot compare meth to nerve agent because meth is not nerve agent. Wikipedia says so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_agent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meth
This is kinda funny
Sedit:
| Quote: |
Sounds like your trying to force A simularity here Gordon.
|
And then in the same post:
| Quote: |
if a man in the UK was sending mail laced with anthrax to the US would you still have a grip about the UK allowing extradition?
|
Again, why are you comparing meth to another chemical? Anthrax is not purchased by millions of U.S. citizens every day and used recreationally.
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
I am in no way trying to force a simularity another1, but I can compair one act of terrorism to another just like he was attempting to do can't I?
They are claiming ties to organized crime and in doing so I feel one should be able to extradite over that sort of thing beit guns, anthrax or drug
manufacturing. Meth has ruined many more lives in america then anthrax has world wide yet if someone from the US was sending anthrax over to the UK
would you oppose there extradition?
Its a matter of personal morals comming into play here. I personaly hate the idea of the guns being sent over as well since atlest when a meth user
does what they do there putting the gun to there own head but a murder puts the gun to someone elses head.
They mislabled chemicals ordered by the DEA on request which Im pretty sure that breaks some sort of international shipping laws at the very lest.
You are all fucking this topic up trying to make it black and white and need to understand that. This is a huge grey area. No I do not feel they
should get a count for each RP transaction since that should be the US job to inspect the chemicals but I do feel they should suffer the consequenses
of there own wrong doings which you all seem to be acting like there was no wrong when there clearly was.
I don't know what to think of this case at the moment because just like yourselfs I dont have all the facts but what I do know is you all are clouding
your better judgment with fear and prejudice.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
JohnWW
International Hazard
Posts: 2849
Registered: 27-7-2004
Location: New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by entropy51 | | Quote: Originally posted by JohnWW | | ....arguments that both parties could use against unfair extradition to face trial on the corruptly and politically inspired charges
|
Honestly, JohnWW, has anything ever been discussed here that you thought was not unfair,
corrupt, and politically inspired? |
Because ALL governments of the world, and their agencies and ministries,
have become UNIVERSALLY CORRUPT, either for cheap vote-catching purposes (like claiming to be "tough on [alleged] crime", as an excuse for repressive
new laws curtailing civil liberties and rights, and framing innocent people for terrible crimes they did not commit as scapegoats), or else for bribe$
(often under the guise of "election campaign donation$")! The combination of the two forms of corruption has resulted in the U$A, in particular,
becoming a plutocratic police state. The Kennedys were probably the last U$ leaders who could have prevented this from developing, but the country's
fate was sealed by their CIA-organized assassinations by mind-controled "zombies" (or "Manchurian Candidates") in 1963 and 1968. (I still remember
what I was doing on the day the news came through in New Zealand of JFK's assassination in 1963).
[Edited on 20-11-09 by JohnWW]
|
|
|
JohnWW
International Hazard
Posts: 2849
Registered: 27-7-2004
Location: New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Sedit | | (cut) They mislabled chemicals ordered by the DEA on request which Im pretty sure that breaks some sort of international shipping laws at the very
lest.(cut) |
If the Howes "mislabeled chemicals", "on request" by the DEA, presumably using a false name or
"front" company when ordering the stuff, that would clearly amount to ENTRAPMENT, because the idea for at least this part of the alleged offenses came
from the DEA itself! It would be at least a partial defense to the charges.
Also, the Howes could not have been too bright if they allowed themselves to be entrapped by such a "sting" operation by the DEA, anyway. They could
have read the source code of the hidden header of the DEA agent's email in which the order was placed, to obtain the IP address of the sender.
Alternatively, if the order was placed by logging onto their website to enter the order and payment details, they should have been able to log the IP
address used by the DEA. Then they could have entered this IP address in some free online site, such as http://showmyip.com , that looks up the geographical location and ISP of IP addresses, to find out exactly where the order was placed from, and
the cu$tomer's ISP.
If the shipping address was different from the location indicated by the IP address, which would have suggested that the DEA had used a proxy-server,
grave suspicion would have been raised about the cu$tomer's identity, and the order should have been refused, especially if (as happened) the cu$tomer
also wanted the labeling to be falsified. The Howes should also have refused to fill the order if the IP address was in Washington, DC, or in the
Virginia or Maryland suburbs and outskirts of Washington, and certainly if also the customer's ISP turned out to be an U$ Government agency.
[Edited on 20-11-09 by JohnWW]
|
|
|
anotheronebitesthedust
Hazard to Others
Posts: 189
Registered: 24-6-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
atlest when a meth user does what they do there putting the gun to there own head but a murder puts the gun to someone elses head.
|
Exactly. If someone is uses a substance in a self-destructive manner, why must we blame other people. Everybody should be responsible for their own
actions. The problem in the U.S. is that there are so many "less uneducated" or "less sophisticated" people who are too easily persuaded.
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust | | Quote: |
atlest when a meth user does what they do there putting the gun to there own head but a murder puts the gun to someone elses head.
|
Exactly. If someone is uses a substance in a self-destructive manner, why must we blame other people. Everybody should be responsible for their own
actions. The problem in the U.S. is that there are so many "less uneducated" or "less sophisticated" people who are too easily persuaded.
|
Your right everyone should be responsible for there own actions yet your defending the defendents right to not be responsible for theres. I do not
know the importation and exportation laws and if someone would be kind enough to post them here so this thread would clean up a bit that would be
great. Im sure these people broke some sort of international laws thru intentional mislabling of packages but until we have the laws in front of us
arguing about it is just spinning our wheels.
As far as the less sophisticated in the US being easy to persuade, well in all honesty us unsophisticated americans are the one persuading there
government to extradite them in the first place . Most be a pecking order there
somewhere.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
The mislabeling was obviously intentional and Howes must have been aware of what was happening to his 'exports', but we should remember that anti-drug
law incentivises this, and other kinds of wrongdoing!
His easy-money making racket is on a low scale in the general scheme, and extradition to the US should be only for major criminals.
He could, if he must, possibly face some kind of 'minor proceedings' in the UK, at most.
If I break a law I don't agree with (and I have) I know I shouldn't expect total immunity. . .
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
