[ RadSafe ] xray WMD - Mere Intent and Voodoo Doll

roseb at gdls.com roseb at gdls.com
Mon Sep 7 15:00:09 CDT 2015

clayton bradt
Mon Sep 7 13:20:51 CDT 2015

>Under the existing
regulatory system I find it hard to believe that Crawford could have
obtained xray tubes on his own.

It is not hard to obtain x-ray tubes at all; search Ebay for "x-ray" tube.
If searched over a sufficient period of time (e.g. a few weeks to months)
one can likely find a tube and possibly an operational system that is
suitable to their need or intent.  There are pretty big gaps in the U.S.
regulations / enforcement with respect to controlling selling or acquiring
such items.  Only persons who are aware of the regulations and are willing
and want to abide by the regulations will do so;  those who are not will
either unwittingly (due to ignorance of the applicable regulations) or
intentionally (e.g. due to unlawful intent or disregard for law otherwise)
not abide by the regulations.

>The direct intervention of the FBI, by
procuring them illegally, was necessary for the device to be built.  Such
illegally obtained evidence (the xray tubes) should have been suppressed.

How do we know, based on the news media accounts (the court transcripts are
currently not accessible online to the public without a for fee
subscription), that the FBI obtained the x-ray tube illegally?  If the
counsel for the defendant thought that the device in evidence was illegally
obtained by the FBI, he certainly could have challenged it during the
case / trial and asked to have it excluded from evidence.  It doesn't seem
likely that the U.S. Attorney would compromise the Government's case by
submitting items illegally obtained by the Government (FBI) into evidence.
If the issue was raised during the case / trial as to whether or not the
evidence (x-ray tube) was illegally obtained and should have been excluded
from evidence, the court either determined that the evidence was not
illegally obtained or that the item could remain in evidence though it was
illegally obtained.

>Even if everything the government did was legal, what was done
was wrong.

The person found guilty in this case had malintentions toward a particular
group of people (Muslims and others he perceived to be a Muslim [current
Presedent of the United States]) he expressed his mal-intentions to others
(e.g. to  acquaintances, the FBI undercover agents, a KKK official, others)
(this constitutes a threat), he conspired with others in attempting to
bring his mal-intentions to fruition, and he made a concerted effort over a
period of at least 13 months with undercover FBI agents in attempt to bring
his mal-intentions toward others (to kill or otherwise harm others using an
x-ray death ray) to fruition.  He was fortunately not successful and was
legally addressed before he could successfully realize his mal-intent
toward anyone.  The terrorism law is fine, it worked the way it was
intended, the person found guilty under the law will not be available or
capable to cause threat or harm to at least one group of people for a
while, if ever again, due to his temporary or permanent removal from free
society or due to other strong discouragement to do so otherwise (e.g.
significant monetary penalty).  This outcome of this case will hopefully
serve to deter others from acting to commit terrorist acts here in the U.S.
or in U.S. jurisdictions.

If the law is bad, wrong, etc., the person found guilt certainly has
opportunities to contest his conviction under the law and even the law
itself in his appeal to his conviction.


Boyd H. Rose, CM, CIH, CHMM, EI
Sr. Safety and Environmental Engineering Specialist
Corporate Radiation Safety Officer
General Dynamics Land Systems
38500 Mound Road
Mail Zone 436-10-80
Sterling Heights , MI 48310-3200
Tel: 586 825 4503
Fax: 586-939-4140
E-mail: roseb at gdls.com

More information about the RadSafe mailing list