One Charge Against Shoe-Bomb Suspect Dismissed (from Yahoo News, although I first heard the story on NPR News during All Things Considered).
Prosecutors had charged Briton Richard Reid with trying to wreck a "mass transportation vehicle" in violation of the USA Patriot Act -- legislation that was hastily approved and signed into law by President Bush in October.
[...]
In tossing out the charge, Judge Young cited the Dictionary Act of the United States -- an arcane piece of legislation that Congress occasionally updates and which provides general definitions for a handful of words that appear in other laws.
The judge said according to the Dictionary Act, vehicles do not travel by air -- only land.
My first reaction was to this was to take a certain juvenile satisfaction in this kind of stupid oversight. The administration is hell bent for leather to tear down civil rights in order to boost poll points. (Consider the fortuitous timing of the Padilla case just as Dubya is trying to create a new cabinet post.
On reflection, however, this whole thing is just a strong example of why it's foolish to rush through legislation (like the USA PATRIOT act) without due deliberation. It seems clear this guy was trying to blow up a plane, and as someone who flies on planes, I've gotta say I'm against that. I'd like to see him prosecuted successfully and punished.
Any kind of communication is prone to misinterpretation on the other end. As a programmer, I'm always deeply aware of this, since writing code essentially amounts to making a communication to a very literally minded audience (the computer). Making changes to software without taking the time to consider the impact of those changes usually results in a much higher yield of bugs later on (which is why I usually resist urgent, last minute bug fix requests without being convinced they really are urgent.).
Writing legislation has a similar property, since the "code" is legislation, and the "compiler" is the judicial system. As in this case, a literal interpretation of a hastily written law will give a result totally unexpected to the crafter of the communication.
So I'm actually sympathetic here, and also disappointed that the law fails to address a case that it seems clear that it should. But, still. 8:16:06 PM ()
|