What were they thinking?

Woman bent on revenge against female friend who got involved with her husband

Woman uses common chemical salt and arsenic compound in haphazard plot intended to irritate her disloyal friend's skin

Local prosecutor files charge of harassment

Federal prosecutors get involved, invoke Congressional ratification of international arms treaty to file "chemical weapons" charges

"The law's the law..."


Wanna see how it ends?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news...apons-attack-n120656


Given that an arsenic compound was used, perhaps it was more than just "harassment".

It seems to me--although I am just a layman--that there would be some charge that the local prosecutor could have filed that would be more than "harassment" in this case.

Maybe it's surprising that AG Holder didn't just have her taken out with a Predator drone strike.

Drone strike? Article doesn't say Ms. Bond is a member of a white supremacist, anti gay marriage, anti climate change group which has slandered Islam, even if only in dreams in the privacy of her bedroom, which the NSA knows about anyway, so why would O order a drone strike, which he would only find out about later by reading a newspaper?



. . . Carol Anne Bond, a microbiologist, . . .

Using a chemical which would cause a rash is the best a microbiologist can do? Didn't graduate first in her class, did she?

The opinion itself makes interesting and enlightening, if tedious, reading: BOND v. UNITED STATES.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 06-03-2014).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: What were they thinking?

Something along the lines of "We're the government and can do whatever the hell we want."

Tedious? You aren't kidding, Marvin. Seems to me something along the lines of " You federal prosecutors are way overreaching, in a deliberate attempt to establish a precedent. We will not allow it. The next time something like this comes here, you federal prosecutors will see jail for contempt, " would serve perfectly.

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: ... " You federal prosecutors are way overreaching, in a deliberate attempt to establish a precedent. We will not allow it ..."

In their concurring opinions Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito disagree.

Well, they are being polite. Even your garden variety paranoid can see the basis for a major expansion of federal authority had the feds won.

Since when is a attempted murder a federal crime?

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

Did you read what I said about precedent? That's why the feds prosecuted.