Boston Marathon Bomber Charged With Using 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' 533
New submitter bunkymag writes "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has now been indicted on over 30 charges relating to his part in the Boston Marathon bombing. Of particular note however is a charge of using a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction.' It's a bit out of line with the commonly-held perception of the term, most notably used in justifying the invasion of Iraq. However, U.S. criminal law defines a 'weapon of mass destruction' much more broadly, including virtually any explosive device: bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines, etc. The question arises: is it wise for Tsarnaev to face such a politically-loaded charge? From an outsider perspective, it would seem easy enough to leverage any number of domestic anti-terror laws to achieve anything up to and including the death penalty if required. Why, then, muddy the waters with this new WMD claim, when the price could be giving further ammunition to groups outside of America that already clearly feel the rules are set up to indict them on false pretenses, and explicitly use this sense of outrage to attract new terrorist recruits?"
They missed a period. (Score:5, Funny)
Should it not be weapons of Mass. destruction?
Or perhaps just weapons of MA destruction?
However (Score:5, Funny)
By this new definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", Saddam did have WMD's and they were in Iraq.
Re:the way I see it (Score:5, Funny)
Using a weapon of mass destruction is a pretty serious violation of the law of conservation of mass. Where did he get the anti-matter?
Re:We're making this all up anyway (Score:4, Funny)
They want the WMD charges to stick, because then they can retroactively justify the Iraq war as there totally were WMDs all over the place there.
Re:We're making this all up anyway (Score:5, Funny)
Just shows that in the US we prefer that you do all your mass attacks with guns.