[FedCom] IMPORTANT BAD NEWS - Homeland Security bill includes HR3482

[ed]

...and if you don't believe federal prosecutors don't *very* creatively 
interpret federal statutes (and facts) to win cases, then you'll probably 
also believe all of these statutes are for your own good.

-ed


At 03:36 PM 11/15/02 -0800, you wrote:
>Everyone seems to agree about the harshness of the potential sentences, but
>there is some possible mitigation up at the top, in Section 101 (b) (2)
>
>< I've snipped some stuff here...>:
>
>(b) REQUIREMENTS- In carrying out this section, the Sentencing Commission
>shall--
>
>     (2) consider the following factors and the extent to which the guidelines
>may or may not account for them--
>
>         (A) the potential and actual loss resulting from the offense;  yadda
>yadda
>
>         (C) whether the offense was committed for purposes of commercial
>advantage or private financial benefit;
>
>         (D) whether the defendant acted with malicious intent to cause 
> harm in
>committing the offense;
>
>         (G) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of
>significantly interfering with or disrupting a critical infrastructure; and
>
>         (H) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of 
> creating
>a threat to public health or safety, or injury to any person;
>
>etc etc    Still a chillingly dreadful way to run a "free" country.
>
>Harry
>
>_______________________________________________
>FedCom mailing list
>FedCom@mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom