Neil Gaiman points out that one of the problems with anti-terrorism laws is that they can be used on folks for whom the laws were never intended with chilling consequences. He presents the example of a fellow who is definately guilty of a bit senselessness and perhaps stupidity who made a deadly poison. Prosecutors assumed he wanted to kill his wife and run of with his mistress but had no evidence, so they used an anti-terrorism law to prosecute him for a crime they knew he did not wish to commit – using a chemical/biological weapon. They didn’t have evidence for attempted murder to they prosecuted for a crime they knew was not accurate. Since anti-terrorism laws do not provide due process or other safeguards, a conviction was easy. Whether the guy really wanted to kill his wife or not (both the wife and mistress believe he was just playing around to see if he could actually make the stuff – a theory Gaiman buys as he’s met too many neeps who would do the same or otherwise and has several examples worth taking a look at – his case is not the sort of thing the law was intended to be used for. Due process is still very very important. He wasn’t given his due.