June 01, 2004

UPDATE on Steve Kurtz & Critical Art Ensemble. The FBI, we now know, will seek to indict Steve Kurtz (and perhaps others) before a grand jury in Buffalo, NY on June 15 on charges related to "biological weapons."
posted by orbit 20 years ago
  • Can some more artistically enlightened monkey please explain to me how a "mobile DNA extraction laboratory" can be considered "art supplies"?
  • Help me, God! I think I'm stuck inside a George Orwell novel.
  • Can someone - the same "someone", perhaps - tell me how a "mobile DNA extraction laboratory" can be used as a biological weapon?
  • rocket88-- As I understand it, and someone correct me if i am mis-remembering, but basically the guy was using it in public to test foods to see if they were genetically altered and he was doing that as a kind of performance art.
  • interesting stuff. i think this might be his web site for that project, click on "web site," then the second "kernels" from the left ("lab tour") and follow the arrows to see all the equipment. yowsa.
  • Kurtz and the Critical Art Ensemble specializes in art which deals with/examines biotechnology (Frankendoods, GM grains, DNA patents, etc). Gosh, I wonder what soulless legal entities could possibly have an interest in intimidating/arraigning such work and such artists? Or which staid institutions might regard him as subversive?
  • If we can take the tin-foil hats off for a second... A man calls the police. The police, not knowing the man is an artist, see some strange apparatus in the man's house. They call in experts. The experts identify said apparatus as a mobile DNA extraction laboratory. The FBI is informed of this and quickly confiscate it for further study and arrest the man on suspicion of possible biological terrorism activities. The man is released but the DNA lab is kept as evidence. That sound about right? Now back to the Orwell/Nazi Germany/"Monsanto is behind this" arm-waving
  • If I was a law enforcement officer in this day and age, I might be interested to learn what sort of art is produced by a mobile DNA extraction apparatus. Plus: Since when is extracting DNA from GM foods "art"? Realistically, they gotta hold on to the stuff until they figure out that this guy is not some sort of maniac. I mean, what happens if they say "Oh, an artist? Sorry to bother you, sir, off you go" and he turns out to be some Lex Luthor type synthesizing new super-resisitant plaque bacillus DNA or something? Then that well-meaning agent becomes the "cop who let the Plague guy go." All the current evidence seems to suggest he's not a maniac and he surely has a lawyer, so I have faith that eventually this will go away. But c'mon, Orwell this ain't.
  • But evidence of what? Artistic practice? It is not illegal to own a DNA extractor and I can buy one as a toy, so why was it confiscate? I don't fault the police, but I think the FBI was a little heavy handed. Many artist are exploring DNA as an artistic medium, like Eduardo Kac and Alba. The extractor is just a tool that enables such explorations.
  • Point is, he's been held for a long time now, he's about to get charged with crimes related to bioterrorism on the basis of evidence that has nothing to do with bio-terrorism, and he's an established artist that's done things like this before. Also, did they really need to confiscate his wife's corpse? As someone said on the previous post, the investigation should have gone something like this... "What do you use this for?" "I use it in my art." "Have you got any examples of your art?" "Yes, here in the next room. Also, I've done exhibitions here, here and here." "Okay, fair enough. Sorry about your loss."
  • The saddest thing about this is that it happened just after his wife died. That alone would be deeply traumatic for most people, but adding this whole drama to it must be absolutely horrible for the guy.
  • two points: 1. if they're bringing him before a grand jury, somebody somewhere must think they have at least a reasonably strong case. 2. if they DON'T have a case, the grand jury probably won't indict.
  • I agree that it must be traumatic for Kurtz, especially coming on the heels of his loss...but if someone in my neighbourhood had that equipment, I'd want it established without a shadow of a doubt that it can't be used for dangerous or criminal purposes. And that's exactly what the courts will determine.
  • a news story about one of his performances, from the seattle times april 2002: The participatory performance was created by the Critical Art Ensemble, a five-person artistic collective. The goal of the performance, said Steven Kurtz, one of the artists, is to sort the irrational fear of transgenic DNA from its true risk so people can get to the next level of discussing what is in the public interest. Transgenic DNA is DNA that has been transferred with genetic engineering from a genetically unlike organism. The performance featured 10 petri dishes: five with mold, four with the bacteria of human spit and one with E. coli bacteria spliced with jumbled human DNA. Push a large red button and the dishes turn and, in a game of transgenic-DNA roulette, a magnet lifts the lid off one of the petri dishes, releasing mold or bacteria. In another area, participants can swab petri dishes with transgenic DNA. The DNA is harmless, said organizers; it can't live without the special sustenance of its petri dish and reproduces too slowly all that human DNA gums up the works to compete with other bacteria. But it is still a lab strain of bacteria, posing certain infectious risks if it gets in a cut, said Michael Antee, health-and-safety supervisor for the university's Department of Environmental Health and Safety. And it is transgenic, activating a set of protocols overseen by the school's Institutional Biosafety Committee. In the end, the entire exhibition was approved by the IBC as a laboratory research project. Staffers were given instruction on topics such as blood-borne pathogens, disinfection, transporting hazardous materials and spill cleanup. "They got a lot of training," Antee said.
  • Doesn't anyone just paint anymore?
  • two points: 1. if they're bringing him before a grand jury, somebody somewhere must think they have at least a reasonably strong case. 2. if they DON'T have a case, the grand jury probably won't indict Meanwhile, he's got to pay for an attorney and have his reputation dragged through the mud -- now he's a suspected terrorist whose wife died "mysteriously". His neighbors will probably never want to speak to him again. A friend of mine in Rochester tells me that the guy's an art professor in Buffalo -- well, probably not anymore. And some police work (i.e., interviewing his colleagues, looking into some of his previous performances, talking to experts who can certify how this equipment might be used) might have cleared this up without necessitating putting him in jail and dragging him in front of a grand jury. As to the equipment, this stuff is legal to buy OTC, as schadenfreude pointed out. You don't need a special permit to own it. If that's a mistake, throwing this guy into jail ain't the proper way to fix it.
  • A foundation of free English-speaking societies is that an individual is innocent until proven guilty -- as in a court of law -- and not held to be guilty until he/she is proven to be innocent. When citizens are arrested/arraigned solely on suspicion, that is intimidation by the state and should be a matter of concern to other citizens. Example: both automobiles and guns are instruments which have brought about many deaths, but -- thus far -- car drivers/owners and gun owners in the US are neither arraigned nor arrested merely because they have in their possesion a car or a firearm. Those curious about critical-art might find this of interest.
  • Sorry, SideDish, only just realized you'd given the same link above. Here's another link concerning the health issue.
  • Do children still play with chemistry sets?
  • Hhhmmmm.....Maybe the problem is that his last name is Kurtz?;) Performance Art = Terrorism. BTW, IMHO performance art often times, SUCKS!
  • A foundation of free English-speaking societies is that an individual is innocent until proven guilty -- as in a court of law -- and not held to be guilty until he/she is proven to be innocent. HAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh Beeswacky. It's not that I don't totally agree with you, because I do emphatically. It's just that time and time again, that the only way that this is applied is in a legal sense, almost never in a public opinion, law enforcement, or civil sense.
  • Yes, unfortunately, shawnj, which is why I think it bears restating. Because injustive occurs is no reason to accept it, nor to remain mute when one witnesses an instance of it. *lifts tattered banner, tries to whistle in the gathering darkness*
  • I agree that it must be traumatic for Kurtz, especially coming on the heels of his loss...but if someone in my neighbourhood had that equipment, I'd want it established without a shadow of a doubt that it can't be used for dangerous or criminal purposes. And that's exactly what the courts will determine. Well then I really don't want to live in your neighborhood, rocket88. Seriously, and without snark or malice or whatever. I don't want to have to prove my innocence, or make sure my papers are in order before I step out of the house, and I don't want to worry about whether or not what I'm doing in the privacy of my home raises the suspicions of my neighbors to the point where they'll call the police on me for crimes against the state.
  • A foundation of free English-speaking societies is that an individual is innocent until proven guilty -- as in a court of law -- and not held to be guilty until he/she is proven to be innocent. He was held overnight. It happens thousands of times a day in all "free English-speaking societies". Obviously none of you have ever been arrested, or known someone who has. First thing they do is put you in jail. The hearing comes later, and if there's sufficient evidence or risk of flight, they put you back in jail until your trial. This is all before proving you guilty. If you think you can't be held in custody without proof of guilt, you're delusional. Example: both automobiles and guns are instruments which have brought about many deaths, but -- thus far -- car drivers/owners and gun owners in the US are neither arraigned nor arrested merely because they have in their possesion a car or a firearm. Try walking around an office building, shopping mall, or college campus with your "legal" firearm.
  • Daniel: After the Oklahoma City tragedy, many people buying large quantities of fertilizer had their properties searched, and had to "prove their innocence" by convincing the authorities that they had a legitimate use for it. It's a fact of life that, at certain times, suspicions run high and individual rights lose out to public safety concerns. Many times this is taken too far, which may be the case here, but other times it works, and works well. (Extensive security checks at airports, for example). I believe Kurtz is innocent, and will be found so in court, but at the same time I think the police involved can't be faulted for following through on a suspicion. That's their job, and they don't do this kind of thing out of malice, but out of concern for public safety (and, as Fes stated earlier, fear of being the "cop who let the Plague guy go").
  • I think it all depends on what his wife actually died from.
  • Okay, let's review some quotes: The Erie County Health Department said Monday a home in Buffalo the Federal Bureau of Investigation went through for two days last week is not considered a public health threat. "(A lab in Albany) has looked for things like Ricin, items that would develop the plague, or anthrax, and those tests have been negative so far," said Anthony Billittier, Erie County Health Commissioner. FBI Special Agent Paul Moskal says Kurtz fully cooperated with agents. "(Krutz) is an artist and some of the material (the FBI is looking at) for his performances, which makes perfect sense." And nobody's disputing that his wife died of natural causes. Thank God this animal's locked up -- he seems a real menace to society. If I were this man, I'd be talking to everyone with a notepad or steadicam. I'd be spelling names for them.
  • Just so nobody gets the wrong idea from my earlier posts...I very much hope that Mr. Kurtz is found innocent without any more delays or hardships, and that all of his belongings are returned to him. I also hope it can be proven that the lab equipment can not be used to create hazardous materials, as his friends claim (please understand if I don't take their word for it). I also hope a new administration in Washington repeals the Patriot Act as soon as possible.
  • Ok, no. No. Bullshit. No. People in our country shouldn't have to prove that their actions are innocent. The government needs to supply evidence that an individual is engaging in a criminal act. Burden is on them. "Bad things happening" isn't a good enough reason to reverse one of the founding principles of this country. I'm amazed that this even needs to be said, as it's such a cliche now: those who would be willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither. Extensive security checks at airports, for example Bwaahahaha! Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously? You're going to claim that the "increased" security at the airport is actually making us safer from terrorists? but out of concern for public safety (and, as Fes stated earlier, fear of being the "cop who let the Plague guy go"). What Fes was saying is that the cop was covering his ass. Any reasonable person would've looked at the situation and realized there wasn't cause for further concern. The only reason this is happening is because the authorities involved want the public to feel that they are rigorously defending our safety. I'd rather BE safe than think I'm safe. We all should be offended that law enforcement resources are being wasted like this. Private ownership of medical equipment isn't probable cause, just as private ownership of firearms isn't enough to qualify as probable cause. You example of "walking around in public" with a gun is absurd. Not to mention that there are states where it is entirely legal to carry a gun on your person if you have a license. This is like someone legally owning a gun, and being arrested for an unspecified murder based on that fact alone.
  • Whilst trying to avoid a pile-on on Rocket88... If it only was that he was held for 24 hours before being set free, that'd be fine. Very silly, but okay. However, all his stuff has continued to be held by the FBI, and he's going to get dragged in front of a grand jury. The FBI's actions in this case are inexplicably, ridiculously moronic.
  • Somehow, by not joining in the chorus of "Oppression! Oppression!", and taking a more pragmatic view, I've become the wacko extremist here. So be it. First of all, you don't have the rights you think you have. You think you can't be arrested and detained without proof? It happens all the time. If a vindictive ex-wife/girlfriend/whatever says you beat or raped her...guess what? You'll spend the night (at least) in jail. If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time when a crime is committed, you'll probably be arrested (on sketchy circumstantial evidence). You may not like that system, but it's the one you live under (even before the Patriot Act). But that's not what happened with Kurtz. In this case, no crime was ever committed or even attempted. Just a guy with some fancy equipment. So why did this all happen? Were the Buffalo Cops wrong to call in the FBI? You seem to think so, but what's the harm in calling in experts, right? Were the FBI wrong to continue their investigation beyond Kurtz's "I'm an artist" explanation? Again, our opinions differ here. A little background check on the equipment's potential uses and Kurtz's anti-GM activist leanings adds up to two things all cops are trained to look for: opportunity and motive. "Maybe this guy's planning to poison the food supply to demonstrate the dangers of GM food...might be worth investigating", they may have been thinking. And so they did. It'll probably turn out to be an incorrect suspicion, but thats for the courts to decide. But in the meantime, they'll hang on to his stuff until that's determined. That's the standard procedure. All in all, there are far worse abuses of power going on in our society. This one is relatively minor.
  • You're going to claim that the "increased" security at the airport is actually making us safer from terrorists? Three years ago, it was easy for a few guys with box-cutters to hijack a plane. So easy, in fact, that it was attempted four times in one day, and all four were successful. Today, I would guess that a similar attempt would fail. Al Qaueda (sp?) probably agrees with me, and thats why they've never tried it again. Are we 100% safe? No. Are we safer? Yes.
  • What Fes was saying is that the cop was covering his ass. Yes indeed, and what's more, covering our *collective* ass. This is what they are supposed to be doing. Any reasonable person would've looked at the situation and realized there wasn't cause for further concern. Absolutely! And I think that's exactly what's happening. The problem is, neither the local cops or the FBI are capable of determining that sufficiently right there on the scene. So, they grab the guy and his stuff and check it out. I don't see this as machiavellian; they just want to be sure. If they guy was a watercolorist, I don't think this would have ever happened, but his art is rather strange and requires some equipment that, to the uneducated observer (which, in the case of DNA extraction is almost all of us) is not immediately identifiable either as to operation or ultimate use. The only reason this is happening is because the authorities involved want the public to feel that they are rigorously defending our safety. Of course! That's their job. Not only helping us feel safe, but actually making sure we are, to the best that they can. Private ownership of medical equipment isn't probable cause, just as private ownership of firearms isn't enough to qualify as probable cause. Not in an of itself, no. However, to belabor the gun analogy: if someone gets shot near my house, and I'm a registered gun owner that lives nearby, I'd certainly expect to be inerviewed. Probable cause is a strange area, in that it relies often on the judgement of the enforcement officials on the scene. Now, no one got "DNA'd" near this guys house, but in light of the anthrax cases back a couple years ago (no one caught, so far as I can remember) and various declarations by the government, the media and our detractors abroad, and in light of the baroque nature of Kurtz's art and the equipment necessarily for it, I don't see that these guys are out of line to go a bit further to make sure he's not a nut. And when the grand jury convenes on this case and finds that he's not a nut, I have full faith that they will drop the indictment. I can understand the impetus to declare police abuse - no one, conservatives included, likes to see the innocent accused and railroaded, because it means that the guilty have gone either free or unnoticed - but I don't think it's the case here. Side me with Rocket88 and the pragmatic approach here; while there are some minor issues in the handling of this case that could be made, they are emminently handleable (and are being handled in the traditional way even now) and we as a society have far stinkier fish to fry.
  • Rocket, I don't think you're a wackadoo, or a Nazi. I hear where you're coming from. Like you, I don't fault the cops who first arrived at the scene -- if I had seen all that equipment, I would probably have called the feds too, just to be sure everything was safe and sound. And no, the feds weren't wrong to investigate. The problem is that this all could have been done without dragging him in front of a grand jury. Background checking on Kurtz, consultation with colleagues and fellow artists, interviewing the heads of the art organizations he worked with, not to mention those who gave him the training to safely use this equipment could have established that this was indeed his art. Surely the FBI has experts who could certify what this equipment could be used for -- if not, they have access to such people. The fact that no hazardous materials have been found, that nobody seems to be contesting that his wife's death was anything but natural, and that he, in the FBI's own words, "fully cooperated" with their requests/demands, ought to have meant something to them. You said "Maybe this guy's planning to poison the food supply to demonstrate the dangers of GM food...might be worth investigating", they may have been thinking. And so they did. Well, that's the same as finding a baseball bat in the guy's house and saying, "Well, maybe this guy's planning to beat some poor defenseless kid over the head with this." You can't arrest people for legally owning items that could potentially be used to harm other people. Otherwise we'd have to outlaw guns, kitchen knives, rope, the Bible, any toxic household chemicals, our own two hands... You have to find some evidence of a conspiracy to commit the crime.
  • Oops, I put em tags around your quote. They ran away.
  • "Well, maybe this guy's planning to beat some poor defenseless kid over the head with this." Please continue with: "here's the bat, there is the model-dummy of a kid, three other model-dummies lying over there have been aparently been beaten with a blunt object, and the batter has written a detailed thesis on the relationship between mental retardation and beating the shit out of defenseless kids by means of a bat." Kurtz's project was the relationship between biodefense funding and its impact on public health. Yes the bat is a legally aquired instrument, but it has to be placed into context.
  • IANAL, but does not conspiracy charges require the burden of proof to be laid on the accused?
  • I think you're overstating the evidence. There was no "unleash bioterror on the community" to-do list on his nightstand ("detailed thesis"). There were no dead test subjects found anywhere or evidence of harmful chemicals ("model dummy"). They haven't reported any evidence of any criminal activity on his record. The guy was creating performance art about genetic manipulation of food -- he has no listed record of any kind of subversive or illegal anti-anything activity. He's critical about current trends in food safety -- so am I, and I own a large steel bar clamp. Come lock me up. He happens to use a piece of perfectly legal lab equipment in his performances to make that point. And, in the FBI quote, they seem to feel that that's a perfectly sensible explanation. There are plenty of sources backing him up. Nobody's gotten hurt except Kurtz himself. Yet they're taking him to a grand jury. Why, exactly? What is the charge? This is a fishing expedition. And IANAL either, but as I understand it, when it comes to criminal charges, the burden is always on the prosecution.
  • Burden is *always* on the prosecution. What blogRot may be thinking of is that two persons may be charged with conspiracy to commit a particular act, even if the act itself is never carried out. Conspiracy also requires two parties- an individual cannot conspire alone. More on conspiracy here and here.
  • One more quote and then I'll shut up about this, promise. Just enjoying the debate. FBI field and laboratory tests have shown that Kurtz's equipment was not used for any illegal purpose. In fact, it is not even possible to use this equipment for the production or weaponization of dangerous germs.
  • This is getting wider coverage.
  • Thanks for the links ambrosia. Why, exactly? What is the charge? This is a fishing expedition. I think they're using Kurtz's case as a medium to define the line between 'art' and what gear the citizenry should be running around with. There will probably be some generic ruling that the FBI can use on other 'radical' groups and their ability to field potential CBR weapons. As for FBI field and laboratory tests have shown ..., the AP report I read said that the FBI confiscated the equipment and three petri dishes (the model-dummies, btw) and hasn't released any information on it. Where did you get that information on the FBI field testing? I haven't seen anything released by non-alternative media that said that. then I'll shut up about this, promise Then where is the fun?
  • Now it's three artists, Kurtz and two othera from the Ensemble, plus other consequences of the Patriot Act.
  • Can we all agree that this is fucking ridiculous now?
  • I'll agree that his so-called "art" is fucking ridiculous. ...and so is the Patriot Act
  • 2. if they DON'T have a case, the grand jury probably won't indict who was it that said "a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich"?
  • ham comes from pigs, which are known to be in Australia, and everyone knows that Australia is entirely peopled by criminals.
  • I'll agree that his so-called "art" is fucking ridiculous. Ridiculous enough to get him and his friends arrested over?
  • Radical enough, maybe.
  • No, I was just critiquing the "art". The arrest is a separate issue and I've already covered that in previous comments.
  • Also from beeswacky's link: "Newsweek reports on how even the act of buying a house, or even getting a home equity loan, now comes under the scope of the Patriot Act. The Associated Press reports on how an ex-con from Nebraska, who has been out of jail and out of trouble for 15 years, is being affected by the Patriot Act. Bruce Lingenfelter, a former University of Nebraska foootball player, said he had no trouble finding work as a heavy equipment operator and a steam fitter in the Seattle area, where he now lives, until the Patriot Act came long. Because he was convicted of a felony drug charge, he cannot work on any federal project, which he had done in the years preceding 9/11."
  • Lingenfelter was arrested with more than $150,000 in cocaine and methamphetamine. My heart bleeds for him. From Newsweek: "CORRECTION: The second paragraph of this report [the part about buying a house/home equity loan] says that the Patriot Act requires that anyone purchasing property must be checked against a list of names of known and suspected terrorists. While the Patriot Act did require that financial institutions create anti-money-laundering compliance programs, it is actually White House Executive Order 13224 that blocks property transactions among people on that list." Slashdot's take on the Steve Kurtz drama.
  • Okay, but let's look at this logically. You can argue that "that's the system" all you want, but who here honestly believes that this guy bought this equipment, created a performance art project to use as a front for his nefarious purposes, openly consulted with experts on how to use said equipment safely, and left it sitting out in his apartment for all to see (including the cops, whom he personally called), when he could have just quietly bought the equipment and kept it secret? Everything this guy has done has been above-board, done in full view of the public, with some professional oversight, and he has an established history of performing this art. Art which I would hardly categorize as "subversive," even given how hostile the current political climate is to criticism. In other words, does anyone honestly believe that these are the actions of a guilty man? Does any veteran law-enforcer think that this is just some elaborate reverse-psychology cover? I don't buy it. There's no real evidence of a crime here. This is more about flailing about in fear and leaving reason behind. It's also about political ass cover -- the feds don't care about credibility, they want the grand jury to make the decision for them because they've taken so much fire in the press over the last couple of years. That way if there's a bad outcome to this (either way), they can just point and say, "Not our fault."
  • Lingenfelter was arrested with more than $150,000 in cocaine and methamphetamine. blogRot:My heart bleeds for him. [Derail] So he was convicted of a non-violent drug possession, served his three-year sentence, and apparently has been a law-abiding citizen for the last 13 or so years (the article says 16 years have passed since his conviction). Hasn't he paid his debt to society? How does limiting his opportunities to work as a steam fitter make us safer? [/derail]
  • "Those folks must be upstanding citizens for 15 to 20 years from the end of their prison sentence, or longer," Johanns said as the three-member board unanimously denied Lingenfelter's pardon request, saying he hadn't been out of prison long enough. - from the article as well. Apparently he hasn't paid off his debt to society just yet. How does allowing felons to work at military bases make us more unsafe? The 15th of June appears to be the date for the grand jury's consideration of bioterrorism charges against Kurtz.
  • So much for balancing a crime with a sentence. What's the point of sentencing people if they continue to be punished so long after they've supposedly paid their debt to society?
  • Ask Kurtz that when he makes parole.
  • Just found out that this is the same jurisdiction of the Buffalo Six.
  • Now there's this in The Guardian.
  • Free Kurtz' Cat!
  • A good outline of things as they stand to date.
  • Peripheral information about the Kurtz-grand jury situation. Grand jury indictments are not expected before June 29th.
  • Steven Kurz (and another professor) has been indicted for fraud. "An art professor whose use of biological materials made him the target of a federal terrorism investigation -- which sparked an outcry in the world art community -- was indicted Tuesday on charges he obtained the materials illegally."
  • "Both men face 20 years in prison if convicted." This is insane.
  • "Hi Bob. Well it looks like my bacteria is not as harmless as I previously thought. While not wildly dangerous, it is associated with pneumonia and urinary tract infections. . . . Seems to be hardest on kids and people with compromised immune systems. Do you know what kind of strain we are getting, and how toxic it is? " - Steve Kurtz
  • Steve Kurtz' problems with the Federal government have not gone away.