Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Today the US Supreme Court hears the ultimate "don't stick your dick in crazy" case   (npr.org ) divider line
    More: Scary, U.S. Supreme Court, Chemical Weapons Convention, Articles of Confederation  
•       •       •

23774 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Nov 2013 at 10:29 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-11-05 09:35:20 AM  
Why wasn't she charged with attempted murder? Also sending toxic materials through the us mail is a federal offense? Right?

This woman should consider herself lucky she was only given 6 years. Jeez.
 
2013-11-05 09:37:33 AM  
Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

I heard this story a few minutes ago on NPR and really wanted a much longer story. It's obvious it's about the Federal-treaty-vs.-States'-Rights thing, and whether this one treaty in particular supersedes state law or not, but what are the implications of Bond winning this? Is this purely a general principle thing, or are there specific Federal laws/treaties/whatever that would immediately no longer apply? Or is a favorable decision for the states' rights people something that needs to be in place for future Supreme Court cases?

Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-11-05 09:43:32 AM  
She has a good excuse to be crazy, and even if she didn't she's still not a WMD-wielding terrorist.
 
2013-11-05 09:48:55 AM  

phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

I heard this story a few minutes ago on NPR and really wanted a much longer story. It's obvious it's about the Federal-treaty-vs.-States'-Rights thing, and whether this one treaty in particular supersedes state law or not, but what are the implications of Bond winning this? Is this purely a general principle thing, or are there specific Federal laws/treaties/whatever that would immediately no longer apply? Or is a favorable decision for the states' rights people something that needs to be in place for future Supreme Court cases?

Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?



It's being presented as a 10th Amendment issue, so her case is getting support from the Cato Institute, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, the attorneys general from six states that are suing to repeal the ACA, etc. I haven't really delved into where the money is coming from, but the case seems to have a lot of support among the Tea Party crowd.
 
2013-11-05 09:49:08 AM  

phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?


Uh, did you read the article? Bond was originally arrested for harassing her former best friend. AFTER that arrest, over a period of 8 months, she proceeded to steal toxic chemicals from her workplace and was videotaped spreading those chemicals over her former best friend's house 24 seperate times.

Sounds pretty crazy to me.
 
2013-11-05 09:53:17 AM  

phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?


Actually, it's more like don't allow a dick formerly stuck in crazy to be stuck in you.
 
2013-11-05 09:58:35 AM  

vernonFL: Why wasn't she charged with attempted murder? Also sending toxic materials through the us mail is a federal offense? Right?

This woman should consider herself lucky she was only given 6 years. Jeez.


In reading the relevant US statutes that implement the CWC, it appears that she can indeed be charged, because the law applies:

§710.2   Scope of the CWCR.
The Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (parts 710 through 729 of this subchapter), or CWCR, implement certain obligations of the United States under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, known as the CWC or Convention.
(a) Persons and facilities subject to the CWCR. (1) The CWCR apply to all persons and facilities located in the United States, except the following U.S. Government facilities:



It's farking scary, though, because of the rather loose definition of "chemical weapon":


Chemical Weapon. Means the following, together or separately:
(1) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), provided that the type and quantity are consistent with such purposes;
(2) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in paragraph (1) of this definition, which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
(3) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in paragraph (2) of this definition.

Toxic Chemical. Means any chemical which, through its chemical action on life processes, can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions, or elsewhere. Toxic chemicals that have been identified for the application of verification measures are in schedules contained in Supplements No. 1 to parts 712 through 714 of the CWCR.



basically, that first one could cover just about any toxic chemical you might have, including common ones like pesticides and rat poison, etc., and even ones like chlorine and bleach if they don't think the "type and quantity" you have is consistent with the "intended purpose".

Also, if you have an empty, inert chemical shell, or one that could be filled with a chemical, you could be charged.

Also, while there appears to be an out for law enforcement agencies, so they can use riot agents, but the same would appear to be prohibited to non-governmental actors.
 
2013-11-05 10:31:38 AM  
If she had been a male who was angry at a senator's penis, he'd be in GITMO.
She should STFU and thank krist she's not a toy for Muslim terrorists in a sekrit muslin prizon.
 
2013-11-05 10:32:19 AM  
Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.
 
2013-11-05 10:32:45 AM  
His problem wasn't sticking his dick in the crazy. That was fine. The problem started when he stuck his dick in crazy's best friend.
 
2013-11-05 10:33:18 AM  
I'm so glad we have people like this to help us determine the limits of our government and laws.
 
2013-11-05 10:33:22 AM  

smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.


*shakes tiny fist*
 
2013-11-05 10:34:31 AM  
Good freaking grief.  Subby nailed it.  After reading that article, good freaking grief.
 
2013-11-05 10:35:36 AM  
Clement contends that Bond's actions were "peaceful," and therefore exempted from the treaty, because of the definition of "peaceful" in international law. Treaties, Clement says, "distinguish peaceful as basically being non-warlike." Bond's run-of-the-mill assault, he argues, did not implicate national and international concerns the way a terrorist attack would.

www.toomanymornings.com



So if I want to poison a bunch of people at once, just make sure an ex is in the crowd.

Got it
 
2013-11-05 10:36:04 AM  

smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.


So it's the guy's fault.
 
2013-11-05 10:37:00 AM  

smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.


Well, let's not go too far. Just because he didn't knock up crazy's bff in hypothetical-land doesn't mean he wouldn't have done something else that set off the crazytrain.
 
2013-11-05 10:37:14 AM  
Clarence Thomas tells that story all the time.
 
2013-11-05 10:37:22 AM  
Spreading around lethal chemicals in a manner that could kill many others besides your intended victim? Fark that

1) Lock this crazy biatch up.
2) Lose the key.
 
2013-11-05 10:37:56 AM  
My name is Bond.  Carol Bond.
 
2013-11-05 10:39:15 AM  
If my husband got my best friend pregnant, you'd see a whole lot of crazy from me as well.
 
2013-11-05 10:39:40 AM  
Use of chemical weapons, off to GITMO with her!!!
 
2013-11-05 10:39:54 AM  
Vietnam?
 
2013-11-05 10:42:09 AM  
So, what's this orange stuff?
 
2013-11-05 10:42:37 AM  
That's unusual. Based on everything I've learned from Spike TV, I would have guessed she would have pulled her weave/wig, scratched punched, etc, etc.

Then I remembered Carlton Banks
 
2013-11-05 10:42:37 AM  
Clement, however, holds firm and poses his own hypothetical. "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

I dunno, it was a chemical being used as a weapon that was deployed somewhere.

I don't get why the local cops didn't think it was a big deal.
 
2013-11-05 10:42:40 AM  

dittybopper: smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.

So it's the guy's fault.


No, she tried to poison her friend, but had he not eff-ed the friend none of this would have happened. So, I guess it is partly his fault. I don't understand why people just don't divorced then eff the best friend.
 
2013-11-05 10:42:45 AM  

Haplo127x: If my husband got my best friend pregnant, you'd see a whole lot of crazy from me as well.


Yeah, but this is  unproductive crazy. You need to go crazy vengeful. Get a decent lawyer, keep all the assets, send him on his way with 2 pairs of socks, clean underwear, and an alimony payment.

And then you don't go to jail.
 
2013-11-05 10:43:20 AM  
What happened to simply bleeding the bastard dry in divorce court?
 
2013-11-05 10:43:40 AM  

Haplo127x: If my husband got my best friend pregnant, you'd see a whole lot of crazy from me as well.


That would be true of most women (and rightfully so) but hopefully most women would stop slightly short of "spreading lethal chemicals around"-crazy.

And WTF, they got her on video doing it TWENTY FOUR times? That's some doggedly persistent crazy!
 
2013-11-05 10:43:51 AM  

dittybopper: smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.

So it's the guy's fault.


He's got a touch of culpability, yes. The best friend also should have not slept with her friend's husband. If she was going to sleep with her friend's husbnd, she should have used birth control. If she was going to sleep with her friend's husband and not use birth control, she should have snuck out to the Abortionplex at the first sign of pregnancy.

Bond is at fault, but there's not really an innocent party here. Lots of blame to go around.
 
2013-11-05 10:44:28 AM  
It's a good thing jurisprudence isn't decided by asking 100 random people their feelings on the matter.
 
2013-11-05 10:44:30 AM  

UsikFark: So, what's this orange stuff?


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-05 10:44:42 AM  

dittybopper: smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.

So it's the guy's fault.


That she was pissed off? Absolutely. He owns that.

Now, that she decided to use a chemical weapon while she was pissed off, that's all her.
 
2013-11-05 10:45:12 AM  

Publikwerks: Haplo127x: If my husband got my best friend pregnant, you'd see a whole lot of crazy from me as well.

Yeah, but this is  unproductive crazy. You need to go crazy vengeful. Get a decent lawyer, keep all the assets, send him on his way with 2 pairs of socks, clean underwear, and an alimony payment.

And then you don't go to jail.


Actually, women are statistically more prone to poison someone. I thinks it's a travesty that she is charged with a treaty violation rather than attempted murder or something from the criminal code.
 
2013-11-05 10:45:44 AM  
You know, I was joking about the whole "It's his fault" thing.
 
2013-11-05 10:45:56 AM  

macadamnut: Vietnam?


This is not 'Nam, this is the high court, there are rules.
 
2013-11-05 10:46:27 AM  

Gonz: dittybopper: smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.

So it's the guy's fault.

He's got a touch of culpability, yes. The best friend also should have not slept with her friend's husband. If she was going to sleep with her friend's husbnd, she should have used birth control. If she was going to sleep with her friend's husband and not use birth control, she should have snuck out to the Abortionplex at the first sign of pregnancy.

Bond is at fault, but there's not really an innocent party here. Lots of blame to go around.


Agreed. As in many if not most fark stories, there is no one involved who is not a total asshole.

Except perhaps little innocent babby who did not ask to be conceived by such idiots.
 
2013-11-05 10:46:48 AM  
sigh.
 
2013-11-05 10:47:34 AM  

dittybopper: You know, I was joking about the whole "It's his fault" thing.


boo, should have let it simmer for a little bit to see how many you could have worked up in furor. You had something going there.
 
2013-11-05 10:48:13 AM  

dittybopper: You know, I was joking about the whole "It's his fault" thing.


Honestly, I am just trying to get back on my wife's good side. I think she may have some crazy in her too. Especially if I were to knock-up the neighbor girl, which I have no intention of!

//I love you baby!
 
2013-11-05 10:49:04 AM  
I know it sounds funny saying this, but this would have been a hell of a lot more productive discussion had it been posted to the Politics Tab...
 
2013-11-05 10:49:20 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Spreading around lethal chemicals in a manner that could kill many others besides your intended victim? Fark that

1) Lock this crazy biatch up.
2) Lose the key.


That's the thing. She was clearly using the chemicals as a weapon and while the crazy ex-wife thankfully didn't hurt anyone because the chemicals were very obvious, she put them in places where they could have harmed innocent bystanders. That is why it falls under the chemical weapons treaty.

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether crazy should be prosecuted as a terrorist under federal law or as a harraser under state law. I'd argue that crazy's intent was to terrorize her ex-husband and ex-friend, and crazy did it in such a way to put innocents like postal workers at risk. Would you charge someone who plants a bomb at the workplace of their ex with terrorism? This is a similar situation. Also, federal treaties do take precedence over state law.
 
2013-11-05 10:49:39 AM  

smoky2010: dittybopper: You know, I was joking about the whole "It's his fault" thing.

Honestly, I am just trying to get back on my wife's good side. I think she may have some crazy in her too. Especially if I were to knock-up the neighbor girl, which I have no intention of!

//I love you baby!


Cover your stump before you hump.
 
2013-11-05 10:51:03 AM  
This involved chemical bombing a mailbox?  Then it's a Federal case.  STFU and get back to work on a real issue, lawyer boy.
 
2013-11-05 10:51:19 AM  

phaseolus: Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?


It used to be that anyone could take a case to the Supreme Court but in the last 10 years or so it has really developed into an area of specialized practice where almost all cases are argued by attorneys from a small number of "elite" firms.  There are a small fixed number of cases available each year so these firms compete for clients... often the law firm pays for everything on this sort of case just to get "their people" more experience in front of the court.  This gives them a better chance to land multi-million dollar clients like Monsanto down the road.
 
2013-11-05 10:51:22 AM  
bdub77
smoky2010: dittybopper: You know, I was joking about the whole "It's his fault" thing.

Honestly, I am just trying to get back on my wife's good side. I think she may have some crazy in her too. Especially if I were to knock-up the neighbor girl, which I have no intention of!

//I love you baby!

Cover your stump before you hump.


Or follow the old saying... don't fark the neighbor girl.
 
2013-11-05 10:52:08 AM  
The true wtf here is that the state did NOTHING.
 
2013-11-05 10:52:09 AM  
This case is more like 'if you are married to crazy dont stick your dick any where else'.
 
2013-11-05 10:53:42 AM  

namegoeshere: phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

Actually, it's more like don't allow a dick formerly stuck in crazy to be stuck in you.


Or, don't stick your dick in crazy's best friend.
 
2013-11-05 10:53:52 AM  

dittybopper: Also, if you have an empty, inert chemical shell, or one that could be filled with a chemical, you could be charged.


Gunpowder is a toxic chemical....
 
2013-11-05 10:54:00 AM  
I really need pics to evaluate if said crazy was worth pumping for 14 years.
 
2013-11-05 10:54:33 AM  

dittybopper: It's farking scary, though, because of the rather loose definition of "chemical weapon":


The definition you cite states that chemicals which are toxic but used for a non-prohibited purpose would not be treated as a chemical weapon under the treaty. So, something like pesticides or bleach wouldn't count.

That being said, if you write a book claiming that Obama is trying to criminalize pesticides you could make a few bucks.
 
2013-11-05 10:55:54 AM  

Sybarite: phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

I heard this story a few minutes ago on NPR and really wanted a much longer story. It's obvious it's about the Federal-treaty-vs.-States'-Rights thing, and whether this one treaty in particular supersedes state law or not, but what are the implications of Bond winning this? Is this purely a general principle thing, or are there specific Federal laws/treaties/whatever that would immediately no longer apply? Or is a favorable decision for the states' rights people something that needs to be in place for future Supreme Court cases?

Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?


It's being presented as a 10th Amendment issue, so her case is getting support from the Cato Institute, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, the attorneys general from six states that are suing to repeal the ACA, etc. I haven't really delved into where the money is coming from, but the case seems to have a lot of support among the Tea Party crowd.


This is why she will lose. The 10th amendment hasn't meant squat since 1861.

Not that the Civil War wasn't worth it, don't get me wrong [slavery is bad], but the 10th Amendment was a dead letter almost since the moment of its ratification. If only for the principal of strengthening at least one of the first 10 Amendments, I'd like to see her win. The 5th is limp and useless (Kelo v. New London), the 4th is dying a slow death (Patriot Act, TSA, NSA), the 2nd is under assault (NY's SAFE Act), the 8th is pointless with mandatory minimums and the only reason the 1st is still around is because free speech is all well and good when the government can continuously ignore it.

At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).
 
2013-11-05 10:55:57 AM  

phaseolus: I know it sounds funny saying this, but this would have been a hell of a lot more productive discussion had it been posted to the Politics Tab...


Yeah, but then I wouldn't have seen it.
 
2013-11-05 10:56:43 AM  

thisisyourbrainonFark: macadamnut: Vietnam?

This is not 'Nam, this is the high court, there are rules.


So what you're saying regarding her six year sentence that they should instead mark it [to] zero [years]?
 
2013-11-05 10:56:47 AM  

smoky2010: Subby, this case is actually "don't stick your dick in the best friend of crazy". Had he kept it is his pants, she wouldn't be facing a chemical weapons treaty violation.


Yes, its his fault she tried to poison her friend. Don't you know? Women can't be held responsible for their actions. Now get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich, biatch.
 
2013-11-05 10:56:59 AM  

elvindeath: I really need pics to evaluate if said crazy was worth pumping for 14 years.


50 posts in before somebody finally asked if she was hot.  Fark, i am disappoint.
 
2013-11-05 10:57:10 AM  
FTA But because of the orange color, the mistress, Myrlinda Haynes, easily spotted the chemicals and avoided any injury except a thumb burn.

Haynes complained more than a dozen times to the local police, who refused to take any action. Eventually, her mail carrier alerted the Postal Service, which videotaped the betrayed wife spreading the chemicals 24 separate times.



She should have told them she thought it was drug-related. They'd have been there in 5 minutes to find some reason for an arrest.
 
2013-11-05 10:57:16 AM  
Sotomayor:  "Esse, you shoulda called my cousin Chuy.  He woulda taken care of dat beetch for 2 tamales and a lift kit for his El Camino!"

State abdicated its position to enforce state laws by doing nothing.
Case became federal when she planted toxic crap on a mailbox, endangering a federal employee.
Fed could have charged her with federal assault, I suppose, but violating international treaty sounds cooler.

In any case, doesn't the Supremacy Clause mean the federal assault charge and the international treaty trump the state charge?
 
2013-11-05 10:59:20 AM  

elvindeath: I really need pics to evaluate if said crazy was worth pumping for 14 years.


1.bp.blogspot.com

The GIS brought up this Carol Anne, so I ran with it.
 
2013-11-05 10:59:32 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Clement contends that Bond's actions were "peaceful," and therefore exempted from the treaty, because of the definition of "peaceful" in international law. Treaties, Clement says, "distinguish peaceful as basically being non-warlike." Bond's run-of-the-mill assault, he argues, did not implicate national and international concerns the way a terrorist attack would.

[www.toomanymornings.com image 460x300]


So if I want to poison a bunch of people at once, just make sure an ex is in the crowd.

Got it


Don't be a farking moron. On a soverign level, this is "peaceful" it isnt threatening another nation-state. The gist of this, is that the states should be prosecuting this (and they should) WTF is the government doing in this?
 
2013-11-05 10:59:49 AM  
Okay, using the CWC to prosecute this lady is a bit shady and out of the blue considering there's plenty of ammo just within the attempted murder, reckless endangerment, etc., category to put her away for a very, very long time...but honestly, it's still the law as ratified by Congress. Otherwise, this is a completely open-and-shut supremacy clause case, that I suspect only was granted cert because Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts saw an opportunity to nibble away at cooperative federalism.
 
2013-11-05 11:01:14 AM  

vernonFL: Why wasn't she charged with attempted murder?


That's a good question. I could also see some kind of aggravated reckless endangerment charge: she could have gotten the postal carrier by accident, and God help us if that stuff had gotten on the friend's outgoing mail.

Given that, why the chemical weapons convention? It's accurate as far as it goes, but it sounds like it's missing the forest for the trees.

Also sending toxic materials through the us mail is a federal offense? Right?

It is, except in some circumstances. But did she actually send toxic materials through the mail? She mixed the poison herself; she bought some of the ingredients through the mail, but those might not have been toxic. Without knowing exactly what they were, it's tough to say.

This woman should consider herself lucky she was only given 6 years. Jeez.

This is the thing that really bothers me. She pled guilty to harassment, but didn't stop, so maybe this big fancy charge was intended to intimidate her. But the big fancy charge doesn't seem to come with nearly enough jail time: attempted murder would have been a better fit for an unrepentant repeat offender.
 
2013-11-05 11:01:24 AM  
I'm not a fan of charging people with terrorism-related crimes when they only committed civil crimes. I don't think that the  Chemical Weapons Convention laws were meant to be used for this. It reminds me of when they tried to charge someone with manufacturing WMDs for running a meth lab. THAT BEING SAID, she definitely deserved 6 years in prison, and I'm surprised that the state wasn't able to find enough normal crimes to charge her with. Surely there were multiple counts of theft, battery (with a weapon maybe), trespassing, etc etc. I can't believe that the local police wouldn't take any action.
 
2013-11-05 11:02:28 AM  
A chemical used as a weapon is not a chemical weapon.

Iron is a chemical that can be toxic, see: Iron Poisoning

It can also be used as a weapon:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-11-05 11:02:56 AM  

Madbassist1: Don't be a farking moron. On a soverign level, this is "peaceful" it isnt threatening another nation-state. The gist of this, is that the states should be prosecuting this (and they should) WTF is the government doing in this?


This isn't about the CWC itself, it's about the law Congress used to ratify it   That law itself was in effect a 'mini-CWC' applied to individuals using chemical weapons within US jurisdiction..
 
2013-11-05 11:03:41 AM  
I listened to this story on NPR.  Yeah, she did not commit an act of war.
 
2013-11-05 11:04:01 AM  

blatz514: UsikFark: So, what's this orange stuff?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x429]


Sunday dinner at Gram's!!

Thanks for the memories

/needs shredded carrots
 
2013-11-05 11:04:38 AM  

phaseolus: I know it sounds funny saying this, but this would have been a hell of a lot more productive discussion had it been posted to the Politics Tab...


Be careful what you wish for.

generallyso: FTA But because of the orange color, the mistress, Myrlinda Haynes, easily spotted the chemicals and avoided any injury except a thumb burn.

Haynes complained more than a dozen times to the local police, who refused to take any action. Eventually, her mail carrier alerted the Postal Service, which videotaped the betrayed wife spreading the chemicals 24 separate times.


She should have told them she thought it was drug-related. They'd have been there in 5 minutes to find some reason for an arrest.


What I learned from this case: USPS can get sh-t done local cops can't.  Simultaneously impressive and sad.

Gotta remember to leave a gift card for my carrier during the holidays.
 
2013-11-05 11:05:57 AM  
Whats to keep the USA and Canada from making all sorts of treaties to expand the power of federal government into areas previously governed by the states?
 
2013-11-05 11:06:08 AM  
A .22 revolver and a 1 liter soda bottle would have done the job a lot quicker and not end up  involving a freaking decision about Treaties, biatch ... you're making Betty Broderick look good, sweetcheeks ...
 
2013-11-05 11:06:52 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Clement contends that Bond's actions were "peaceful," and therefore exempted from the treaty, because of the definition of "peaceful" in international law. Treaties, Clement says, "distinguish peaceful as basically being non-warlike." Bond's run-of-the-mill assault, he argues, did not implicate national and international concerns the way a terrorist attack would.

[www.toomanymornings.com image 460x300]


So if I want to poison a bunch of people at once, just make sure an ex is in the crowd. and you're not doing it as part of a terroristic act, just a criminal one, then you should be charged under state criminal law, and not under an international treaty.


FTFY. He's not saying she should get away scot free, but that it's the state that should be punishing her, not the federal government. The federal government only has very limited power to imprison people, typically limited to interstate or international actions, those on federal property, etc. Historically, it's because one of the reasons for the Revolution was that the British Crown would force their own criminal laws and punishments on colonial citizens, regardless of the colonial laws, and those laws and punishments could be arbitrary, since you have no real representation there.

Specifically, the question is about whether congress has limitless power to enact any treaty, regardless of whether they have power to do so. In other words, their powers are limited in Article 1, Section 8, but if the President signed a treaty that said, for example, that it would be illegal to smoke cigarettes indoors, could Congress pass a law criminalizing that  everywhere? Or only just on Federal lands or in Federal buildings?

This treaty was about use of chemical weapons by nations against other nations or citizens, and Congress does have that power:
Art 1, Sec. 8, clause 10 "The Congress shall have the power... To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations"
But that doesn't really apply to normal criminal assault between a jilted spouse and mistress. That's something that's part of the traditional state police power, and not granted to Congress.
 
2013-11-05 11:07:07 AM  
Take her to the woodshed and shoot that biatch.

I don't care what the SCOTUS figures out. That woman should not be put back in our society.

They should be investigating the state police for not doing anything.
 
2013-11-05 11:08:18 AM  
Given that the purpose of the convention was to prevent chemical  warfare, I think there are actually three ways the court could go on this:

1. Yes, states have to abide by the specific wording of treaties.

2. No, prosecutors shouldn't be able to kick local-jurisdiction matters up to federal court based on treaties in general.

3. This specific interpretation of the treaty's wording is bullshiat, here's a common-sense limitation/test on the application that compensates for the poorly-worded overbroad crap usually found in international literature..
 
2013-11-05 11:08:54 AM  

TheWhoppah: A chemical used as a weapon is not a chemical weapon.

Iron is a chemical that can be toxic, see: Iron Poisoning

It can also be used as a weapon:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x427]


It's a good thing that the treaty defines the term "chemical weapon" for use within the context of the treaty, then. As it turns out, some chemicals are considered chemical weapons when you use them as weapons, and iron is not one of them.
 
2013-11-05 11:09:00 AM  
...and yes, that fact that it involved the USPS makes it Federal.
 
2013-11-05 11:10:02 AM  
greentea1985:
The issue before the Supreme Court is whether crazy should be prosecuted as a terrorist under federal law or as a harraser under state law. I'd argue that crazy's intent was to terrorize her ex-husband and ex-friend, and crazy did it in such a way to put innocents like postal workers at risk. Would you charge someone who plants a bomb at the workplace of their ex with terrorism? This is a similar situation.

No, and no. "Terrorize" doesn't simply mean to "scare" or "injure" someone. If you rob a bank, you're not committing bank terrorism. If you sideswipe someone's car during road rage, you may scare them, but you're not terrorizing them. If you drive drunk, you're not committing an act of terror against every citizen on the roads. Terrorism is specifically about attacks on civilian populations to cause them to petition their government to change a political policy. It's not trying to kill your ex-husband.
 
2013-11-05 11:10:04 AM  
Dick v. Crazy, Mendoza, et. al.
 
2013-11-05 11:10:36 AM  
This is why you should never sleep with a married man.
 
2013-11-05 11:12:16 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Eventually, her mail carrier alerted the Postal Service, which videotaped the betrayed wife spreading the chemicals 24 separate times.

She should have told them she thought it was drug-related. They'd have been there in 5 minutes to find some reason for an arrest.

What I learned from this case: USPS can get sh-t done local cops can't.  Simultaneously impressive and sad.


Counterpoint - apparently the USPS will let your neighbor try to poison you 23 times before they get tired of watching and do anything.
 
2013-11-05 11:14:01 AM  
Also, what do these people look like? Does anyone have any Facebook pictures?
 
2013-11-05 11:15:45 AM  
FTA: Clement, however, holds firm and poses his own hypothetical. "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Fark yes, we would, moron.
 
2013-11-05 11:17:03 AM  

Yugoboy: At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).


You'll get whiplash watching it disappear if it's ever put to the test. War on _________ !!!
 
2013-11-05 11:17:09 AM  

TheWhoppah: Whats to keep the USA and Canada from making all sorts of treaties to expand the power of federal government into areas previously governed by the states?


For the US, a treaty requires 2/3 majority vote from the Senate. That's a pretty big hill to climb.
 
2013-11-05 11:17:36 AM  

Theaetetus: Specifically, the question is about whether congress has limitless power to enact any treaty, regardless of whether they have power to do so. In other words, their powers are limited in Article 1, Section 8, but if the President signed a treaty that said, for example, that it would be illegal to smoke cigarettes indoors, could Congress pass a law criminalizing that  everywhere? Or only just on Federal lands or in Federal buildings?


The way I see it is a question of whether that treaty is applicable to this situation at all, not whether the federal government has a right to enforce it in this case. If the treaty could ever apply to this action, involving the mail box made it the federal government's business. If the treaty isn't supposed to apply to this situation, then the action isn't prosecutable under the treaty regardless of where it occurred.
 
2013-11-05 11:17:55 AM  

cowsspinach: Also, what do these people look like? Does anyone have any Facebook pictures?


All I could find was a college graduation shot of an black woman. Carol Anne Bond is a native of Barbados. Why do the local papers not have pics of all parties? Strange.
 
2013-11-05 11:20:48 AM  

Yugoboy: Sybarite: phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

I heard this story a few minutes ago on NPR and really wanted a much longer story. It's obvious it's about the Federal-treaty-vs.-States'-Rights thing, and whether this one treaty in particular supersedes state law or not, but what are the implications of Bond winning this? Is this purely a general principle thing, or are there specific Federal laws/treaties/whatever that would immediately no longer apply? Or is a favorable decision for the states' rights people something that needs to be in place for future Supreme Court cases?

Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?


It's being presented as a 10th Amendment issue, so her case is getting support from the Cato Institute, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, the attorneys general from six states that are suing to repeal the ACA, etc. I haven't really delved into where the money is coming from, but the case seems to have a lot of support among the Tea Party crowd.

This is why she will lose. The 10th amendment hasn't meant squat since 1861.

Not that the Civil War wasn't worth it, don't get me wrong [slavery is bad], but the 10th Amendment was a dead letter almost since the moment of its ratification. If only for the principal of strengthening at least one of the first 10 Amendments, I'd like to see her win. The 5th is limp and useless (Kelo v. New London), the 4th is dying a slow death (Patriot Act, TSA, NSA), the 2nd is under assault (NY's SAFE Act), the 8th is pointless with mandatory minimums and the only reason the 1st is still around is because free speech is all well and good when the government can continuously ignore it.

At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).


I don't know about that... I have a soldier quartered in my house.

/She pays pretty awesome rent though
 
2013-11-05 11:20:49 AM  

Theaetetus: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Eventually, her mail carrier alerted the Postal Service, which videotaped the betrayed wife spreading the chemicals 24 separate times.

She should have told them she thought it was drug-related. They'd have been there in 5 minutes to find some reason for an arrest.

What I learned from this case: USPS can get sh-t done local cops can't.  Simultaneously impressive and sad.

Counterpoint - apparently the USPS will let your neighbor try to poison you 23 times before they get tired of watching and do anything.


Counter-counterpoint - This is still better than what the local cops did.
 
2013-11-05 11:23:35 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Theaetetus: Specifically, the question is about whether congress has limitless power to enact any treaty, regardless of whether they have power to do so. In other words, their powers are limited in Article 1, Section 8, but if the President signed a treaty that said, for example, that it would be illegal to smoke cigarettes indoors, could Congress pass a law criminalizing that  everywhere? Or only just on Federal lands or in Federal buildings?

The way I see it is a question of whether that treaty is applicable to this situation at all, not whether the federal government has a right to enforce it in this case. If the treaty could ever apply to this action, involving the mail box made it the federal government's business. If the treaty isn't supposed to apply to this situation, then the action isn't prosecutable under the treaty regardless of where it occurred.

 It's both. In this case, the treaty is non-self-executing - it doesn't criminalize any conduct on its own, rather it requires signatories to the treaty to pass their own laws criminalizing possession and use of chemical weapons. Accordingly, the question is whether Congress has the power to criminalize possession and use of chemical weapons by a person within a state against another person within the state, or whether that's a matter for the state to criminalize.
 
2013-11-05 11:27:28 AM  
racingwindsblog.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-05 11:27:53 AM  
Yugoboy:
At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).

Tell that to the phone company central offices hosting servers for the NSA against their will.
 
2013-11-05 11:31:52 AM  
The Supremacy Clause specifically states that treaties made by made by Congress trump state law so...yeah. I would expect this to be pretty open-and-shut.
 
2013-11-05 11:36:05 AM  
Proverbial mountain out of a mole hill. Sad fact is she should have been tried under State laws, not that she hasn't earned a 6 year stint in prison, but because this will be used to dismantle the power of the Federal Government to make and enforce Treaties.
 
2013-11-05 11:37:26 AM  

Yugoboy: At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).


The history of the Third Amendment is actually really interesting. The only thing that came close to going to the Supreme Court (though ultimately it didn't) was a case involving prison guards who were also given housing on the prison grounds. When they went on strike, the state deployed the National Guard to guard the prisoners - and quartered the Guards in the employee housing. The striking guards sued under the Third Amendment and it was found in the favor, but the state wasn't punished because of qualified immunity (i.e. they didn't know that the law could be interpreted that way so they were acting in good faith at the time).

The thing about the Third Amendment is that if there's ever a clear cut violation of it, it won't be going to the Supreme Court because we'd already be pretty boned.
 
2013-11-05 11:38:03 AM  
Why is this necessary?

If your spouse, or gf, bf, etc, "cheats on you," what are you cheated out of?
What did you have before that you don't still have?
Get over it.
 
2013-11-05 11:40:20 AM  
I'm surprised the Supreme Court is even hearing this.  Treaties necessarily preempt states' rights; this is because only the federal government can enter into a treaty, but naturally some treaties will cover issues reserved to the states.

This is the reason treaties need to be approved by the 2/3 of the Senate (which, you'll remember, once represented the interests of state government).  I wonder if the Supreme Court is thinking that now that Senate doesn't represent the interests of state government, why should treaties preempt states' rights any more?  Maybe we need an amendment that state legislatures need to approve treaties from now on.

This is also why certain treaties don't need to be approved by the Senate: if the treaty is judged not to preempt states' rights--for example, NAFTA, which was entirely concerned with powers assigned to the federal government--then it doesn't need 2/3 Senate approval.
 
2013-11-05 11:41:33 AM  
Terrorism is the new Hero...

Whats even more disturbing is the amount of Farkers around here who have lost their minds and actually think this, or many other acts are terrorism. Whats even more disturbing then that is the fact that these mouth-breathers are not called out. This is how shiat like 'Hero' becomes a word tossed around for people who are not even remotely close to being a 'Hero' like the victims of a school shooting.

Terrorism has a very distinct definition. An act of violence designed to coerce a population of people into changing their minds or actions regarding a political or social cause. A woman spreading chemicals to kill her ex-husbands new lover is absolutely NOT terrorism. Some
arse-hole who decides to snap and go on a shooting rampage is NOT a terrorist, criminal, yes, mass shooter, yes, mass murderer yes, terrorist no.

Some arse-hole shooting up an abortion clinic because he doesn't like abortion, terrorist, burn down a logging operations headquarters because they hate the logging industry, terrorist, blow up your neighbors garage because his dog wont stop barking, not terrorist.

Any Farker who claims this womans acts were acts of Terrorism should be locked in a Mall in Kenya during an actual terrorist attack....
 
2013-11-05 11:49:12 AM  
This seems like something that the federal government clearly shouldn't be involved in, but some people oppose any limitations to the federal government's power.
 
2013-11-05 11:52:35 AM  
This dude's Strange might want to fake her own death ala Enron Ken whilst the nutter is in the joint. Dude might want to consider it as well.
 
2013-11-05 12:03:27 PM  
Uh...the story teaches you not to get married to crazy. Just sticking your dick in crazy is usually a lot of fun
 
2013-11-05 12:09:47 PM  
Wow.

I've stuck my dick in a lot of crazy over the years, but never "violated the Hague Convention" crazy.  She must be a demon in the sack.  Or the guy is hung like a sperm whale.
 
2013-11-05 12:10:53 PM  
I'd really like to know why the local PD refused to charge her despite video evidence of her applying toxic chemicals to attack a romantic rival 24 farking times... Is she the sister or daughter of someone powerful and influential or something?
 
2013-11-05 12:14:15 PM  
FTFA:  "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Wrong.

I know the dude's her lawyer and gets paid to make ridiculous statements like that, but for fark's sake, how is it not a "chemical weapon"? Because she used it against one person instead of Afghanistan or Syria?

Having said that, this does seem to be an overreach on the part of the federal govt. Seems like stealing from your employer and dispensing chemicals in an unsafe manner on publicly accessible things like a mailbox is something that is actionable at the state level.
 
2013-11-05 12:17:39 PM  

aevorea: thisisyourbrainonFark: macadamnut: Vietnam?

This is not 'Nam, this is the high court, there are rules.

So what you're saying regarding her six year sentence that they should instead mark it [to] zero [years]?


Marking a bright orange line in the sand
 
2013-11-05 12:18:29 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Wrong.

I know the dude's her lawyer and gets paid to make ridiculous statements like that, but for fark's sake, how is it not a "chemical weapon"? Because she used it against one person instead of Afghanistan or Syria?

Having said that, this does seem to be an overreach on the part of the federal govt. Seems like stealing from your employer and dispensing chemicals in an unsafe manner on publicly accessible things like a mailbox is something that is actionable at the state level.


It's a food product, basically.
 
2013-11-05 12:21:30 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Wrong.

I know the dude's her lawyer and gets paid to make ridiculous statements like that, but for fark's sake, how is it not a "chemical weapon"? Because she used it against one person instead of Afghanistan or Syria?


You would seriously say that "she deployed a chemical weapon", rather than that "she tried to poison her neighbor"? Not "was it a chemical" and "was it intended as a weapon", but if someone didn't ask a bunch of leading questions and asked you, personally, to state in your own words what she did, you would say that she "deployed a chemical weapon"?
 
2013-11-05 12:26:52 PM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: Why is this necessary?

If your spouse, or gf, bf, etc, "cheats on you," what are you cheated out of?
What did you have before that you don't still have?
Get over it.


And she was 34 at the time. If she had just called it a lesson and gone on with her life, she might be remarried by now, to someone who wouldn't fark her best friend. Now she's a crazy biatch in jail (I assume she's in jail).

I'm sure that will keep her warm at night while her ex and his 2nd wife (I assume they're married) are enjoying whatever marital bliss they have, free from the nutjob coontil she's paroled).
 
2013-11-05 12:31:32 PM  

Theaetetus: Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Wrong.

I know the dude's her lawyer and gets paid to make ridiculous statements like that, but for fark's sake, how is it not a "chemical weapon"? Because she used it against one person instead of Afghanistan or Syria?

You would seriously say that "she deployed a chemical weapon", rather than that "she tried to poison her neighbor"? Not "was it a chemical" and "was it intended as a weapon", but if someone didn't ask a bunch of leading questions and asked you, personally, to state in your own words what she did, you would say that she "deployed a chemical weapon"?


I probably wouldn't say "deployed." I'd say she "used" chemicals as a weapon against another person.

What if she threw battery acid in the face of the girlfriend? Would that be a "chemical weapon" being used? I would think so.

I wouldn't classify it as a "poisoning." NPR used that verbiage, I wouldn't.

I already said the feds overreached. So we appear to agree on that point.
 
2013-11-05 12:40:12 PM  

Yugoboy: Sybarite: phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

I heard this story a few minutes ago on NPR and really wanted a much longer story. It's obvious it's about the Federal-treaty-vs.-States'-Rights thing, and whether this one treaty in particular supersedes state law or not, but what are the implications of Bond winning this? Is this purely a general principle thing, or are there specific Federal laws/treaties/whatever that would immediately no longer apply? Or is a favorable decision for the states' rights people something that needs to be in place for future Supreme Court cases?

Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?


It's being presented as a 10th Amendment issue, so her case is getting support from the Cato Institute, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, the attorneys general from six states that are suing to repeal the ACA, etc. I haven't really delved into where the money is coming from, but the case seems to have a lot of support among the Tea Party crowd.

This is why she will lose. The 10th amendment hasn't meant squat since 1861.

Not that the Civil War wasn't worth it, don't get me wrong [slavery is bad], but the 10th Amendment was a dead letter almost since the moment of its ratification. If only for the principal of strengthening at least one of the first 10 Amendments, I'd like to see her win. The 5th is limp and useless (Kelo v. New London), the 4th is dying a slow death (Patriot Act, TSA, NSA), the 2nd is under assault (NY's SAFE Act), the 8th is pointless with mandatory minimums and the only reason the 1st is still around is because free speech is all well and good when the government can continuously ignore it.

At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).


She already won the 10th Amendment argument in front of the Supreme Court once.   The SCOTUS agreed that any citizen can challenge a conviction under Federal Law as exceeding the 10th Amendment.

After it went back to District Court, the Government Started arguing that the Treaty Power gives the Federal government the power to make new laws, that would be unconstitutional otherwise.   So we are back for round 2.
 
2013-11-05 12:40:44 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Theaetetus: Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Wrong.

I know the dude's her lawyer and gets paid to make ridiculous statements like that, but for fark's sake, how is it not a "chemical weapon"? Because she used it against one person instead of Afghanistan or Syria?

You would seriously say that "she deployed a chemical weapon", rather than that "she tried to poison her neighbor"? Not "was it a chemical" and "was it intended as a weapon", but if someone didn't ask a bunch of leading questions and asked you, personally, to state in your own words what she did, you would say that she "deployed a chemical weapon"?

I probably wouldn't say "deployed." I'd say she "used" chemicals as a weapon against another person.

What if she threw battery acid in the face of the girlfriend? Would that be a "chemical weapon" being used? I would think so.

I wouldn't classify it as a "poisoning." NPR used that verbiage, I wouldn't.

I already said the feds overreached. So we appear to agree on that point.


I disagree. If I mix two chemicals together, I've "used chemicals". If I take a chemical and put it in public somewhere without any further supervision --

"Bond spread the toxic material on her rival's mail, mailbox, front doorknob, car door and other surfaces."

-- I have damn well deployed it.
 
2013-11-05 12:42:00 PM  

devildog123: Yugoboy: Sybarite: phaseolus: Nice as subby's headline is, this case really ain't about sticking your dick in crazy, is it?

I heard this story a few minutes ago on NPR and really wanted a much longer story. It's obvious it's about the Federal-treaty-vs.-States'-Rights thing, and whether this one treaty in particular supersedes state law or not, but what are the implications of Bond winning this? Is this purely a general principle thing, or are there specific Federal laws/treaties/whatever that would immediately no longer apply? Or is a favorable decision for the states' rights people something that needs to be in place for future Supreme Court cases?

Also -- "This is the second trip to the Supreme Court for Bond."  Which organization is paying for this? What do they stand to gain -- warm fuzzy I-was-right-all-along feelings, or some specific thing they eventually want overturned?


It's being presented as a 10th Amendment issue, so her case is getting support from the Cato Institute, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, the attorneys general from six states that are suing to repeal the ACA, etc. I haven't really delved into where the money is coming from, but the case seems to have a lot of support among the Tea Party crowd.

This is why she will lose. The 10th amendment hasn't meant squat since 1861.

Not that the Civil War wasn't worth it, don't get me wrong [slavery is bad], but the 10th Amendment was a dead letter almost since the moment of its ratification. If only for the principal of strengthening at least one of the first 10 Amendments, I'd like to see her win. The 5th is limp and useless (Kelo v. New London), the 4th is dying a slow death (Patriot Act, TSA, NSA), the 2nd is under assault (NY's SAFE Act), the 8th is pointless with mandatory minimums and the only reason the 1st is still around is because free speech is all well and good when the government can continuously ignore it.

At least nobody's violating the 3rd (yet).

I don't know about that... I have ...


There is a 3rd Amendment case working it's way through the Courts right now.   Las Vegas police basically arrested a family, because they wouldn't allow the Police to use their home to spy on a neighbor.
 
2013-11-05 12:43:41 PM  
Sticking your dick in crazy is always a good idea. Letting crazy have any way of finding you after the fact and by extension marrying crazy is the problem.
 
2013-11-05 12:46:26 PM  

Stile4aly: dittybopper: It's farking scary, though, because of the rather loose definition of "chemical weapon":

The definition you cite states that chemicals which are toxic but used for a non-prohibited purpose would not be treated as a chemical weapon under the treaty. So, something like pesticides or bleach wouldn't count.

That being said, if you write a book claiming that Obama is trying to criminalize pesticides you could make a few bucks.


You didn't read the whole thing:

(1) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), provided that the type and quantity are consistent with such purposes;

So let's say you have something like an Easy Set swimming pool, but you got a really good deal on carboys of Chlorine, or maybe you used to run a pool business, or whatever, so you've got couple of those, more Chlorine than you could possibly use in several years.  That's not in a "quantity consistent with" the use you are putting it to.

Not that I think that would happen just out of the blue, but given the habit of prosecutors to over-charge defendants in the hope that some charges would stick, I could see that happening.
 
2013-11-05 12:52:59 PM  

dittybopper: Stile4aly: dittybopper: It's farking scary, though, because of the rather loose definition of "chemical weapon":

The definition you cite states that chemicals which are toxic but used for a non-prohibited purpose would not be treated as a chemical weapon under the treaty. So, something like pesticides or bleach wouldn't count.

That being said, if you write a book claiming that Obama is trying to criminalize pesticides you could make a few bucks.

You didn't read the whole thing:

(1) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), provided that the type and quantity are consistent with such purposes;

So let's say you have something like an Easy Set swimming pool, but you got a really good deal on carboys of Chlorine, or maybe you used to run a pool business, or whatever, so you've got couple of those, more Chlorine than you could possibly use in several years.  That's not in a "quantity consistent with" the use you are putting it to.

Not that I think that would happen just out of the blue, but given the habit of prosecutors to over-charge defendants in the hope that some charges would stick, I could see that happening.


In fact, as noted by the court during the oral argument for this case the first time it went up, the statute criminalizes possession of vinegar if you intend to poison a goldfish with it.
 
2013-11-05 12:56:57 PM  

weiserfireman: the Government Started arguing that the Treaty Power gives the Federal government the power to make new laws, that would be unconstitutional otherwise


This is why everybody should really hope that the government loses the case. Otherwise it means future President Rick Santorum could sign a treaty with a couple of African basket case states banning homosexuality and just have to convince a few Senators to go along with it.
 
2013-11-05 12:58:43 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  "I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here," he says, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon."

Wrong.

I know the dude's her lawyer and gets paid to make ridiculous statements like that, but for fark's sake, how is it not a "chemical weapon"? Because she used it against one person instead of Afghanistan or Syria?

Having said that, this does seem to be an overreach on the part of the federal govt. Seems like stealing from your employer and dispensing chemicals in an unsafe manner on publicly accessible things like a mailbox is something that is actionable at the state level.


The mailbox makes it federal. Don't f*ck with the mail.
 
2013-11-05 01:02:01 PM  

vernonFL: Why wasn't she charged with attempted murder? Also sending toxic materials through the us mail is a federal offense? Right?

This woman should consider herself lucky she was only given 6 years. Jeez.


THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
 
2013-11-05 01:03:46 PM  

mongbiohazard: I'd really like to know why the local PD refused to charge her despite video evidence of her applying toxic chemicals to attack a romantic rival 24 farking times... Is she the sister or daughter of someone powerful and influential or something?


arrest the cops
charge them with wreckless endangerment

I hope the woman who was attacked sues them in civil court and wins millions. it is the only hope to change and fix a broken system.

Or were the cops busy writing revenue tickets? harrassing herb smokers and ...
 
2013-11-05 01:35:23 PM  
♫ ♪ Now I got my own mustard gas in my pocket
Climb on a tree on a branch and drop it
On a country club full of Saturday golfers... ♪ ♫

sloes78.files.wordpress.com

/hot & oblig
 
2013-11-05 01:44:35 PM  
Holy crap, people are just stupid and easily misled. Do you really think it's a good idea to allow treaties to completely override State and Federal law???

Let's look at one treaty in the works right now.

Each industry group has a list of regulations that it finds troublesome, which it has been unable to eliminate or weaken at the national or sub-national level. An EU-US trade agreement provides these industry groups with an opportunity to do an end-run around such regulation.

For example, several countries in Europe and many state and county governments in the United States impose restrictions that make fracking difficult or impossible. In their dream agreement, the oil and gas industries will have a set of minimal restrictions on fracking. The deal will then define anything more stringent as a restraint on trade subject to penalties.

There are likely to be similar effects on food regulation. Europe has far more restrictions on genetically modified foods and crops than the United States. Since it is not possible, given current European politics, for the industry to get these restrictions eliminated, it will be looking to include provisions in a trade deal that define limits on genetically modified foods and crops as trade barriers.

Millions of people took part in the efforts last year to defeat Sopa and Pipa, two bills that would require individuals and internet intermediaries to proactively work to stop the transmission of unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted material. The entertainment industry would very much like to include comparable provisions in a trade agreement, so that it can avoid having to have another fight over this issue in Congress.

The financial industry will also be at the table trying to include language that limits the ability of governments to impose regulations. It is likely that it will try to include wording that would make it impossible to enforce a financial transactions tax like the one now being considered by the European Union. Although the industry may not be able to sway enough votes in European parliaments to prevent them from supporting a tax, they can use an EU-US trade deal to make that fact irrelevant.

And just as has been the case with every other trade agreement over the past quarter century, the pharmaceutical industry is looking to this trade deal as an opportunity to enhance its patent monopolies. It will likely push for restrictions on price controls and probably also ways to extend the length and scope of their patent monopolies. The CEPR study does not include any projection of the economic losses that would result if the pharmaceutical industry is successful in increasing protection and pushing up drug prices.

The list of industry special interest groups that hope to gain from this deal could be extended at some length, but the point should be clear. This deal is first and foremost about providing powerful industry lobbies with an opportunity to circumvent the normal political process.


Allowing Corporations to bypass State and Federal laws and regulations is NOT a good idea, people.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-11-05 01:54:12 PM  

cowsspinach: This is why you should never sleep with a married man.


Unfortunately, my wife has already heeded this advice. Badum-tish!
 
2013-11-05 02:24:57 PM  
Either I missed it or farkers are slacking
http://youtu.be/iuVmKam3m34
 
2013-11-05 02:55:45 PM  

Lord Dimwit: The thing about the Third Amendment is that if there's ever a clear cut violation of it, it won't be going to the Supreme Court because we'd already be pretty boned.


National Guard in Federal-subsidized housing to restore order.
 
2013-11-05 02:59:55 PM  

UsikFark: So, what's this orange stuff?


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-11-05 03:18:02 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: Lord Dimwit: The thing about the Third Amendment is that if there's ever a clear cut violation of it, it won't be going to the Supreme Court because we'd already be pretty boned.

National Guard in Federal-subsidized housing to restore order.


Hm. Good example.
 
2013-11-05 03:35:36 PM  

UsikFark: So, what's this orange stuff?


images2.wikia.nocookie.net

We haven't entirely nailed down what element it is yet, but I'll tell you this: it's a lively one and it does not like the human skeleton.
 
2013-11-05 03:49:18 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: phaseolus: I know it sounds funny saying this, but this would have been a hell of a lot more productive discussion had it been posted to the Politics Tab...

Be careful what you wish for.



Hey, since you're here -- if the Supreme Court decides that individual U.S. states can do whatever the hell they feel like it even though international treaties say they can't, what could this do to the Great Lakes Compact?
 
2013-11-05 03:50:48 PM  

BullBearMS: Holy crap, people are just stupid and easily misled. Do you really think it's a good idea to allow treaties to completely override State and Federal law???


Ultimately, no treaty can abrogate the Constitution.

So, say for instance the US signed a treaty that says all signatory nations have to ban handguns.  Because that's illegal under the Second Amendment, the treaty would be null and void.  Even if ratified by the Senate, it would still not become law because it's superseded by the Constitution, which is the ultimate law of the land.  You'd have to amend the Constitution before that would become law.
 
2013-11-05 03:51:27 PM  

vudukungfu: If she had been a male who was angry at a senator's penis, he'd be in GITMO.
She should STFU and thank krist she's not a toy for Muslim terrorists in a sekrit muslin prizon.




Alex Jones, is that you?
 
2013-11-05 03:54:46 PM  

RobSeace: UsikFark: So, what's this orange stuff?

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 850x478]

We haven't entirely nailed down what element it is yet, but I'll tell you this: it's a lively one and it does not like the human skeleton.


media.desura.com
 
2013-11-05 04:19:16 PM  
She should have put the orange stuff on his penis.
 
2013-11-05 07:20:37 PM  

Haplo127x: If my husband got my best friend pregnant, you'd see a whole lot of crazy from me as well.


That. Shiat not given for whorebag friend, or scumfarking husband.
 
2013-11-06 12:25:39 AM  
The US gov't is trying to honor a treaty? Since when?
 
2013-11-06 12:34:50 AM  

dittybopper: BullBearMS: Holy crap, people are just stupid and easily misled. Do you really think it's a good idea to allow treaties to completely override State and Federal law???

Ultimately, no treaty can abrogate the Constitution.


I didn't say it did. I said this is a case about a treaty overriding laws inside the US.

For instance, under the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement currently being negotiated:

foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.

This is a terrible, terrible idea.
 
2013-11-06 12:38:27 AM  

Terrible Old Man: The US gov't is trying to honor a treaty? Since when?


Terrible Old Man: The US gov't is trying to honor a treaty? Since when?


Since pushing this allows them to hand Corporations unlimited power to ignore US law and regulation?

It's not like this is about something silly like honoring our promises to native Americans.
 
2013-11-06 06:24:59 AM  

BullBearMS: Terrible Old Man: The US gov't is trying to honor a treaty? Since when?

Terrible Old Man: The US gov't is trying to honor a treaty? Since when?

Since pushing this allows them to hand Corporations unlimited power to ignore US law and regulation?

It's not like this is about something silly like honoring our promises to native Americans.


I think we probably disagree about nearly everything, but we agree about this.
 
2013-11-06 03:32:54 PM  
We're all missing the important thing here: Is she hot?
 
Displayed 137 of 137 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report