IANAL, but terrorism isn’t a well-defined crime in most jurisdictions, this doesn’t match any of the various federal definitions in the US, and I can’t think of any lesser charges that you could make stick by adulterating water with purer water. But on the other hand, accessing a municipal water supply is likely to involve at least a couple of crimes along the way.
The realistic worst-case scenario for this is something like Portland, Oregon’s Mount Tabor reservoir urination saga: you haven’t actually done anything dangerous and everyone (except for a few homeopaths, and I think even they would be more likely to treat it as a stunt) knows it, but you’ve created a very expensive public relations stink for no good reason. Governments tend not to appreciate that.
“Terrorism” is certainly a well-defined crime in the US. See e.g. here, in particular:
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that … (B) appear to be intended … (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion
(note the word appear to be intended)
The realistic worst-case scenario depends on how pissy the prosecutors are feeling and whether they need a sacrificial goat at this particular moment. See today’s Popehat for a sense of how wide the prosecutorial discretion is.
You’re skipping the first test (“violent acts or acts dangerous to human life”), which is why this doesn’t qualify. No violence, no danger: not terrorism by federal standards.
Think about this from the prosecutor’s perspective. You’re looking at an obvious publicity stunt. Normally this sort of thing would be prosecuted under state law, which is what I was trying to get at with “most jurisdictions”, but let’s say you’re working under the US Code for… reasons. Maybe our perp crossed state lines. Now, you don’t want to encourage this sort of thing, but if you bring terrorism charges it’ll show up in the media (which is what the perp wants), and you know they probably won’t stick: any lab will tell you that the bucket of water the guy threw in the reservoir is completely harmless, and any competent lawyer is going to have the test done. So, knowing that, do you go for the charge that’s flashy but near-guaranteed to embarrass you, or do you go for the easy, uncontroversial charges of unlawful trespass etc., limit it to back-page news at best, and have the idiot pay a hefty fine and do some community service work?
I think you’re missing the point that for a terrorism charge to stick, the threat does not have to be real. If I demand a change in policy towards Backwardistan threatening that I’ll blow up the bomb in my suitcase, I will (probably) be charged with terrorism even if my suitcase contains nothing but dirty underwear.
“I pissed in your water supply, oops” is very different from “I poured some liquid into you water supply and I demand the government do X”.
The threat doesn’t have to be real, but it has to be “violent or dangerous to human life”. The entire point of this exercise is that it isn’t, and wouldn’t be considered so by any reasonable observer. Nor is OP making empty threats of violence, as in your dirty-underwear example: in this scenario, he did exactly what he said he would.
“I demand the government do X or I’m going to fart in my Congressman’s direction at his next photo op” is not a terrorist threat, and this is about as dangerous as that would be.
Well, let’s put it this way. I think this discussion of what might or might not constitute a terrorism threat is fine on a ’net forum (hi, NSA guys!), but I really would prefer not to have to argue this issue with federal prosecutors while sitting in pre-trial confinement...
Let me remind you of the Boston case where there was no threat, no demand, no nothing, the perpetrator was a big corporation—and still the result was a $2m fine (effectively) and the firing of an executive.
Have I not made it clear enough that I think this is a stupid idea? It’s totally a stupid idea, and it will get you arrested if you try it. I just don’t think that it’s likely to crank up the terrorist paranoia machine. That machine might be idiotic and humorless and prone to overreaction, but it’s set up to pattern-match to certain things—bombs, hijackings, threats to airplanes or big dramatic monuments, guys with beards or turbans—that this doesn’t fit.
There’s a big difference between doing something that could be construed as a bomb threat, however tangentially, and aping the forms of a bad superhero movie precisely to make a point about the harmlessness of what you’re doing.
To go full trope, get a few hysterical moms screaming at the local bigwigs “The TV said there’s dihydrogen monoxide in our water supply!! OH NO!!! WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!” and there might well be pressure to make an example of the miscreant. Do you feel lucky, punk? X-D
I can see a third way: nothing explicit happens, but your name gets put onto the NSA “crazies to watch” list :-/
Oh, and the second way is likely to get you charged with terrorism, with, I expect, rather unpleasant consequences.
IANAL, but terrorism isn’t a well-defined crime in most jurisdictions, this doesn’t match any of the various federal definitions in the US, and I can’t think of any lesser charges that you could make stick by adulterating water with purer water. But on the other hand, accessing a municipal water supply is likely to involve at least a couple of crimes along the way.
The realistic worst-case scenario for this is something like Portland, Oregon’s Mount Tabor reservoir urination saga: you haven’t actually done anything dangerous and everyone (except for a few homeopaths, and I think even they would be more likely to treat it as a stunt) knows it, but you’ve created a very expensive public relations stink for no good reason. Governments tend not to appreciate that.
“Terrorism” is certainly a well-defined crime in the US. See e.g. here, in particular:
(note the word appear to be intended)
The realistic worst-case scenario depends on how pissy the prosecutors are feeling and whether they need a sacrificial goat at this particular moment. See today’s Popehat for a sense of how wide the prosecutorial discretion is.
You’re skipping the first test (“violent acts or acts dangerous to human life”), which is why this doesn’t qualify. No violence, no danger: not terrorism by federal standards.
Think about this from the prosecutor’s perspective. You’re looking at an obvious publicity stunt. Normally this sort of thing would be prosecuted under state law, which is what I was trying to get at with “most jurisdictions”, but let’s say you’re working under the US Code for… reasons. Maybe our perp crossed state lines. Now, you don’t want to encourage this sort of thing, but if you bring terrorism charges it’ll show up in the media (which is what the perp wants), and you know they probably won’t stick: any lab will tell you that the bucket of water the guy threw in the reservoir is completely harmless, and any competent lawyer is going to have the test done. So, knowing that, do you go for the charge that’s flashy but near-guaranteed to embarrass you, or do you go for the easy, uncontroversial charges of unlawful trespass etc., limit it to back-page news at best, and have the idiot pay a hefty fine and do some community service work?
I think you’re missing the point that for a terrorism charge to stick, the threat does not have to be real. If I demand a change in policy towards Backwardistan threatening that I’ll blow up the bomb in my suitcase, I will (probably) be charged with terrorism even if my suitcase contains nothing but dirty underwear.
“I pissed in your water supply, oops” is very different from “I poured some liquid into you water supply and I demand the government do X”.
The threat doesn’t have to be real, but it has to be “violent or dangerous to human life”. The entire point of this exercise is that it isn’t, and wouldn’t be considered so by any reasonable observer. Nor is OP making empty threats of violence, as in your dirty-underwear example: in this scenario, he did exactly what he said he would.
“I demand the government do X or I’m going to fart in my Congressman’s direction at his next photo op” is not a terrorist threat, and this is about as dangerous as that would be.
Well, let’s put it this way. I think this discussion of what might or might not constitute a terrorism threat is fine on a ’net forum (hi, NSA guys!), but I really would prefer not to have to argue this issue with federal prosecutors while sitting in pre-trial confinement...
Let me remind you of the Boston case where there was no threat, no demand, no nothing, the perpetrator was a big corporation—and still the result was a $2m fine (effectively) and the firing of an executive.
Have I not made it clear enough that I think this is a stupid idea? It’s totally a stupid idea, and it will get you arrested if you try it. I just don’t think that it’s likely to crank up the terrorist paranoia machine. That machine might be idiotic and humorless and prone to overreaction, but it’s set up to pattern-match to certain things—bombs, hijackings, threats to airplanes or big dramatic monuments, guys with beards or turbans—that this doesn’t fit.
There’s a big difference between doing something that could be construed as a bomb threat, however tangentially, and aping the forms of a bad superhero movie precisely to make a point about the harmlessness of what you’re doing.
Yeah, well...
To go full trope, get a few hysterical moms screaming at the local bigwigs “The TV said there’s dihydrogen monoxide in our water supply!! OH NO!!! WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!” and there might well be pressure to make an example of the miscreant. Do you feel lucky, punk? X-D