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?"
We're making this all up anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
They could charge him with a felony parking violation. What difference does it make? Not that I'm sympathetic to the bomber. Just sayin'.
Oh the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
So according to the government's own definition the U.S. military not only owns, but uses weapons of mass destruction, probably on a daily basis? I thought they raided Iraq, because the just owned such weapons. This definition is ridiculous!
Let's invade Boston (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not call him a pedo too? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to just make up definitions to make things sound worse, why not call him a pedo as well and charge him for that too?
Seriously, the guy's a murderer plain and simple and deserves to be locked up for the rest of his life. But a conventional bomb simply is not a weapon of mass destruction unless you want the term to have no meaning.
Nukes are WMDs. Chemical weapons fit the bill, as do biological ones. Possibly a really huge conventional bomb could reach that (e.g. a daisycutter in a populate d area), but a bomb set off in a crowd which kills 5 people? That's not even remotely a WMD.
The stupidity of this burns, frankly.
Re:the way I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
as long as he is left lifeless in the end.
Easy there, ganjadude. Personally, I'd like to see the guy rot in a cell.
Keeping people alive to make them think about what they've done seems far more just to me than letting them escape their guilty conscience.
Retroactive Evidence ;) (Score:4, Insightful)
By this new definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", Saddam did have WMD's and they were in Iraq.
I didn't though of that. Maybe the government is pulling a "Romney" in trying to find a casus belli for that war fiasco retroactively :P
Domestic audience (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect this is another instance where the Federal prosecutors are thinking of primarily domestic considerations. If they bring the biggest and most impressive-sounding charges they can, then all the surveillance powers and generally noxious government behavior seem more justified. It pays to keep the public scared: it keeps the "homeland security" budget super-sized and it makes the Federal prosecutors look and feel bigger than they are. Both of those outcomes are good for their careers.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
wonder if the Colorado gun man gets charged as such too.
"killing 12 people and injuring 58 others"
Re:the way I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
For purposes of criminal law, the bomb was legally a weapon of mass destruction. The effect of the bomb qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction for purposes of discussion.
Boston Marathon bombing [bostonglobe.com] 3 dead, 254 wounded. Fifteen victims suffered amputations, two of which had double amputations.
There are two contexts in which "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is used. In military usage it refers to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Criminal code usage is a superset of military definition, plus "destructive devices." Basically, explosive or incendiary devices with more than 1/4 oz payload. The charges are in-line with current criminal law practice.
Re:Oh the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
No no, you misunderstand. WMDs are owned and used by bad guys, never by good guys. This Boston fellow is a bad guy, therefore what he uses must be WMDs. The US military are good guys, because they don't use WMDs. We know they don't use WMDs because they are good guys and good guys don't do that. It's all perfectly simple when you think about it.
Re:the way I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but current criminal law practice is to make everything sound rather grandiose. When most people think of WMDs they think of weapons that can cause real mass destruction. Things that kill thousands or millions.
Re:the way I see it (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think they threw that charge in to be cute?
They are trying to set a precedent, and by the looks of it they will because as you see from the comments here, this guy is automatically guilty of anything they charge him with in the publics eye.
A Cheapening of the Charges (Score:5, Insightful)
"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?"
Absolutely not. Tsarnaev is a terrorist and a murderer. As such, he should be indicted logically, using the law logically, and with all the abundance of evidence arrayed against him.
By trumpeting the charges and re-defining the semantics behind the term WMD, we turn a legitimate case into a political circus. Moreover, when we cheapen a word or term (WMD in this case), when we redefined in an ad hoc manner away from the commonly accepted semantics of it, we setup a terrible precedent, one than can be legitimacy challenged by Tsarnaev's attorney.
There is no sane way in which we can interpret a pipebomb or a pressure cooker bomb as a weapon of mass destruction. No common person exercising common sense and common knowledge can accept such a definition. Any such redefinition is no longer objective. It is biased and subjective, one that can run into trouble with a judge in a court of law (or a jury).
So why risk it? I mean, there are many reasons, political and circus-like reasons, yes, but no valid, legal or ethical reasons.
Tsarnaev is guilty of terrorism. It is guilty of murder. It is guilty of harming other people and property. It is guilty of robbery. It is guilty of kidnapping. It is guilty of manufacturing and deploying destructive devises (of which WMDs are just a very small subset.) One could argue that he is guilty of organized crime (with the objective of committing acts of terrorism.)
There is plenty of objective evidence with which to finding him guilty of all of that in state and federal courts.
He is not guilty of using a WMD. This is a slippery slope for something that is completely unnecessary. If we use that logic, does a mass shooting turns a rifle into a WMD? Does crashing a car to run into a store turns it into a WMD? As horrible as these things might be, there are laws of sufficient strength and logical soundness to prosecute such acts.
This move does not make us safer. In fact, it might have the opposite effect since it trivializes the meaning behind "WMD", which could make it more difficult to prosecute an actual WMD charge.
Authorities, please: Let us not make one more mockery out of legal institutions and charge this criminal appropriately. Do not turn our courts for such an important case into a political circus, please.
Re:We're making this all up anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
It really feels as if the government is getting desparate to find boogymens for everything. Now they have a guy they could have potentially stopped from using WMDs if they had been allowed to use more intrusive surveillance (never mind that they already did the surveillance).
Notice how in the case of manning and snowden the complaints aren't about what they revealed, they are about that they revealed it. This is all pointing directly into scare and diversion tactics. And we can only hope that it ends with a revolution.
The arabic springs are the start, not the end, the opression is everywhere.
Re:Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Does it really matter that this was done with explosives? Would you feel better if he stabbed 237 people to the same effect?
Gloria: "Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?"
Archie: "Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"
Re:We're making this all up anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is if they ever charge you with terrorism because the firecrackers you throw hit the wrong spot. Would you like a death penalty for an accident? Setting precedents is dangerous, including the one of making this all up part.
Re:the way I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheaper than an execution. Look up the real numbers and be surprised.
Also morally superior. I see no reason to make us all murderers.
Re:the way I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
That is probably the singly most morally repugnant thing I will read all day. As far as I can tell you appear to be no better than this bomber.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
They do it because they want to force a plea deal.
The only reason they include it is for the so-called trial penalty. It is realistic enough that a judge won't throw it out, but it is so extreme that if the guy chooses to attempt a trial the risk is greater. It will be so extreme that he won't want that risk, so he'll choose the plea bargain instead of rolling the dice at a trial.
This is the biggest current flaw in the US legal system. Prosecutors have no stake in the game, no disincentive from adding trumped-up and unrealistic charges. It is something that other nations managed to get right with prosecutors needing to pay for accusations that don't result in convictions. If prosecutors needed to pay some significant penalty money to compensate the accused for every charge that is dismissed, the problem would quickly dry up.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense, this is a Corrupt Government spining MSM (Score:5, Insightful)
He should just be charged with what he did:
Killing x people, Wounding y people,
Exploding a bomb with intent to endanger life,
Conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.
Sll the rest is bollocks, MFG, omb
Re:the way I see it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the way I see it (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, but they'll call it a "mass shooting" or describe it as "mass casualties".
Of course they'll describe the pistol magazines as "high capacity" even though they are standard capacity for the firearm. The idea is to spin the event or item to make it sound more scary than it is.
"mass shooting" > "shooting"
"mass casualties" > "casualties"
"high capacity magazine" > "magazine"
"weapon of mass destruction" > "bomb"
Re:the way I see it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We're making this all up anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
"It really feels as if the government is getting desparate to find boogymens for everything."
Not to play conspiracy theorist or anything, but history says this is (really) TYPICAL tyrannical-government strategy.
* Label things as far worse than they actually are, as long as it's only citizens being labeled.
* Label things far better than they actually are, when it's government behavior, not citizens.
* Make everything illegal. When everybody is a criminal, then you can enforce the laws arbitrarily and only against those you don't like.
(Think that is a joke? YOU are probably a felon already, many times over, and didn't even know it. [threefeloniesaday.com])
---
Re:We're making this all up anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
I often wondered how people from eastern block countries have a "don't give a fuck attitude" about everything compared to the west. But it's all making sense.
I suppose after generations of the government trying to get you riled up and feeding you shit... you just become desensitized.
At one point a sexual offender was something to get worried about. Now with "pissing in public" being treated the same who really knows.
Now a guy can do 10 years in prison... for smoking pot.
Writing anti-bank slogans in chalk on a public sidewalk outside a bank... terrorist.
The day will come when people just stop caring...
Re:the way I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
You are not seeking justice, only vengeance.
Re:the way I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as he gets a fair trial (and by fair I mean a death sentence)
I for one am elated that you are not allowed to define what is meant by a "fair trial."
Re:We're making this all up anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We're making this all up anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Why is a small explosive a WMD but an assault rifle with multiple large magazines, which is much more deadly, is perfectly legal?
The US already has zero credibility worldwide on the question of identifying weapons of mass destruction anyway
(a small war based on a total lie had something to do with that),
so this indictment just puts it into the negative credibility zone.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the way I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not the same, that is the of talk that leads to this sort of behavior.
Of course not.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
It definitely doesn't count, in my book. You post-cold-war kids are so cute. Did you know the band Megadeth got their name from something that was believed to be reasonably likely could happen? 237 casualties isn't even a blip on the WMD scale. WMDs are for serious scale murder.
Exaggeration sounds like good idea when you're going after a specific bad guy, but it reminds me of how "registered sex offender" used to mean "rapist" and now, for all you know, it can mean some kid who sext-messaged his girlfriend or maybe even got drunk and peed on a parking meter.
Overbroad terminology abuse will remove stigma. Now the next time someone wants to start a hideously expensive war over alleged WMDs, the public will say "why should I care if Saddam II has a hand grenade?"
Hmm... now that I think of it, this could save us a shitload of money. Ok, you've convinced m-- wait, what if Saddam II actually has (oldschool definition) WMDs? Are we going to need a new term that means the same as WMD used to mean, like "WMDs, no I mean for real, 'Threads' and 'The Day After' style, dude!"?
Re:the way I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
I won't say you're not entitled to your opinion on this matter, but lucky for our society, the courts agree with me. Also, lucky for you if you're ever wrongfully accused of a crime.
Re:We're making this all up anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
And we can only hope that it ends with a revolution.
Something that most Americans fail to realize is that 99% of the time, revolution is a very, very bad thing. The American Revolution is an extreme anomaly. It is one of only a very small handful of revolutions that didn't end with decades living under the iron fist of a tyrannical government. Most revolutions create power vacuums, and power vacuums are almost always filled by a great strongman. Another US revolution would not only be catastrophically bloody, but, like all other revolutions, it would almost invariably be followed by decades of dictatorship. Revolution is not required for even great change. See: Taiwan, or even Great Britain.