CHARGING COMMON CRIMINALS UNDER TERRORISM LAWS DOESN'T FIT IN AMERICA'S
JUSTICE VALUES

Our hats are off to Watauga District Attorney Jerry Wilson for using a law
written to battle terrorism in the war on drugs.

Unfortunately, our hats are off because we're waving them frantically in an
effort to flag down this train before it leaves the station.

We aren't berating Wilson for trying to prevent the spread of
methamphetamine laboratories -- in fact, we commend him for his cleverness
- -- but the broader ramifications of this act are chilling.

According to the Associated Press, Wilson charged 24-year-old Martin Dwayne
Miller with "two counts with of manufacturing a nuclear or chemical
weapon'' in addition to eight drug-related charges. Wilson said, "Not only
is the drug methamphetamine in itself a threat to both society and those
using it, but the toxic compounds and deadly gases created as side products
are also real threats.''

As the concoctions used to make methamphetamine are described as "toxic and
highly combustible,'' Miller is being charged under the terrorism law
describing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons as "any substance that
is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury and ...
is or contains toxic or poisonous chemicals or their immediate precursors.''

Each of the two counts Miller faces carry 12 years to life, far stiffer
penalties than current laws governing methamphetamine carry.

Watauga County Sheriff Mark Shook's comments in the Associated Press story
on this incident reflect the frustrations facing law enforcement in
controlling the spread of meth labs. Shook said, "I love it. Now instead of
laughing at you when you charge someone, they're going to go, 'Whoa.' This
really gives us something we can use.''

Fighting methamphetamine is one thing, but this move raises so many
questions it's hard to know where to start.

The first would be, is it wise to define this as terrorism? Certainly, if a
meth lab blew up, that would spread terror in the neighborhood that housed
it. But meth production certainly seems to be strictly a criminal act.
Terrorism is associated with ideology. The ideology at play in meth
production does not seem to rise above greed and a coarseness of attitude
concerning the health and well-being of fellow citizens. The object is not
to create explosions and spread terror; it's to not have an explosion, and
spread drugs for profit.

Again, making methamphetamine is indefensible, but using the same standard
- -- "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or
serious injury and ... is or contains toxic or poisonous chemicals or their
immediate precursors'' -- is incredibly broad. It would seem that someone
making moonshine could face the same charge, or for that matter just about
anything here in our chemical-dependent 21st century society. Cigarettes
have the "capability to cause death or serious injury'' and the stuff
spewed from TVA smokestacks "contains toxic or poisonous chemicals or their
immediate precursors.''

Those scenarios are farfetched, but this one isn't: This act crosses --
nay, leaps far over -- a very troubling line. Charging common criminals
under terrorism laws is a road we do not want to travel. For one, we do not
need those in charge of pursuing and prosecuting genuine terrorists to be
overburdened with cases involving people running a meth lab out of their
basement. But mainly, we don't need terrorism laws applying to U.S.
citizens for any reason other than involvement in actual terrorism.

Consider that legislation proposed under "Patriot Act II'' includes wording
that would:

Allow you to be wiretapped for 15 days without a warrant;

Would allow federal agents to arrest you and hold you without providing any
information to your family until you're charged -- regardless of how long
that takes;

Would allow your citizenship to be stripped from you if you helped, even
without knowing you helped, an organization labeled as a terrorist group.
Those are a few of the reasons groups ranging from the ACLU to the Gun
Owners of America are worried about Patriot I and a possible Patriot II.

The path taken in Watauga is a path we'd best not start wandering down.

Terrorism laws should apply to terrorists; criminals should be subject to
criminal law. If stiffer penalties for meth labs are needed, by all means
let's get some legislation through the General Assembly as fast as possible.