Boston Marathon Bomber Charged With Using 'Weapon of Mass Destruction'

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?"

WMDs in Iraq

[JDG1980]

So there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all!

Re:the way I see it

[dadelbunts]

I would hardly count 3 dead as a weapon of mass destruction. All the buildings are still there as well.

Re:Yes

[flatt]

Killing 3 people and maiming 234 using explosives and shrapnel counts as mass destruction in my book. Thanks for asking, though.

Then charge him with three counts of murder and 234 counts of attempted murder. Does it really matter that this was done with explosives? Would you feel better if he stabbed 237 people to the same effect?

Re:Why not call him a pedo too?

[serviscope_minor]

More:

It's even stupider than that. From skimming the law, it appears that any destructive device can count as a WMD, which mean's it's apparently legal to own one, given that one can own destructive devices.

In fact the Bofors 40mm AA autocannon (the largest machinegun in civillian hands) fits the bill, and there's videos of someone (legally) setting off his WMD at a number of entertaining targets.

Stupid definitions are just stupid.

Re:the way I see it

[h4rr4r]

I believe the bomber thought something similar. That his crime was less so than what others had done.

Ganjadude's suggestion is in someways worse in that he wants to make us all share in his murder.

Re:We're making this all up anyway

[interkin3tic]

I kind of suspect this is just a PR move by local politicians, the prosecutors, the district attorney or whoever (not familiar with goverment structure).

"We at the Boston city government are going to charge this guy with SO MANY laws that his head will explode. Yeah, we have a shit-ton of laws to use on him. So you, the citizen, taxpayer, and voter are WICKED safe: we put the bad guys away in terrorist jails for a billion years. You don't need to vote for someone else promising to keep you safe from random violence that you for some reason think is plaguing the country. "

Escalating crimes seems dangerous (dangerous as in real danger, not like the "danger" of terrorism). Today it's these idiots charged with WMD, the next national tragedy involving guns, someone is going to get the bright idea to declare guns WMD, and then every gang member found with a gun on his person is going away for life at supermax prison, at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayer.

I guess the thing to do would be to ask the FBI how it is that they let "terrorists" who knew how to make "weapons of mass destruction" into the country after Russia warned us about the two.

Re:We're making this all up anyway

[gmuslera]

So, childs trying to mix firecrackers so they get a bigger boom, for fun, not for killing people, will become mass killing terrorists now? And what about other countries, to where this kind of laws gets exported in a way or another? Will a country with a more permisive legislation on firecrackers be invaded just because have WMD by the new definition?