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'.
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: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, Informative)
The term "weapon of mass destruction" has meant things like grenades, flamethrowers, and improvised explosives for at least a century in law. The term is defined in every state's gun laws, and has nothing to do with NBC weapons. Bush's use of it to describe chemical weapons, which is the first time many people heard the term, was non-standard. (Basically, it's been clear for as long as there have been gun laws that they don't include the right to make arbitrary improvised weapons, and during the "bomb throwing anarchist" years ~100 years ago these laws were given real teeth.)
Re: (Score:3)
According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the term wasn't even coined until the late 1930s in regards to the Nationalist bombing of Guernica with help from the German Luftwaffe and Italian Aviazione Legionaria, likely in fear that the Spanish civil war would spill over into another World War (and it pretty much did). If I remember correctly this was the first major case of "terror bombing" where civilian populations were intentionally targeted to break resistance rather than strategic bombing where resources and manufacturin
Re:We're making this all up anyway (Score:5, Informative)
For example:
1972 UN Treaty http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/sea_bed/text
1998 CNN article http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Or a billion other examples that are easy to find if you search any news or legislative archive.
And I used the government code web search for California, Louisiana, and Massachusetts to look up your state law claim. Only Louisiana had any law with a reference to "mass destruction" and that was most definitely not about simple explosives.
So for a typical West Coast, East Coast, and Southern State there is no mention of Weapon of Mass Destruction and certainly not in the ridiculous manner of the federal law that says that a potato gun is a WMD ("any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title"->"expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter").
It's so broad that they had to specifically mention that shotguns are not WMDs! Absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, no. You've got it precisely all fucked up and backwards.
The term WMD has been applied to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons since the end of WWII -
Re:We're making this all up anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
"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 (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.
Re:We're making this all up anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
Stupofascism (Score:3)
Best. New. Political. System. EVAR!!!!!
Seems to be how most companies are run, too.
Re: (Score:3)
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: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: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.
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: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.
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: (Score:3)
Only if you put it in the hands of a robot that keeps pulling the trigger (because full-auto weapons are essentially illegal in the USA) and is somehow able to empty and reload two or three 30 rounds mags in under a second.
Re: (Score:3)
What difference does it make?
Hillary? Is that you? I didn't realize you read Slashdot!
Re: (Score:3)
This may seem to be odd, but Timothy McVeigh was also charged and found guilty of using a weapon of mass destruction back in the '95 bombing of the Murrah building. So this isn't necessarily just post-9/11 hysteria.
Considering how many orders of magnitude difference there is between the Boston pressure cooker bomb and the OKC truck bomb, what prinicple would prevent an M-80 from also being classified as a WMD?
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.
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
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't though of that. Maybe the government is pulling an "Obama" in trying to find a casus belli for that war fiasco retroactively :P
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
as does every other country... so maybe its time to buy defense contractor company shares... o wait its always time to buy defense contractor shares
Re: (Score:3)
Shouldn't all the Presidents, Secretary of States, Joint Chiefs of Staffs and soldiers be investigated for war crimes during those conflicts?
Yes. In fact, I would argue that those people should be put on trial any and every time they commit a violent act against another person or nation.
If the system is just, as they swear to us it is, then they should be found innocent of any wrongdoing, right? What's to fear?
Re: (Score:3)
You have conveniently left out the deadliest wars. Estimates place civilian casualties at 38-55 MILLION civilian casualties [wikipedia.org] during WWII. Most were killed by the Germans and Japanese. 15 - 20 million Russian civilians killed by the Germans. Another 7 - 16 million Chinese civilians killed by the Japanese
Even the most out-there estimates of civilian casualties as a result of American actions from all of the above (Iraq- 120,000, Afghanistan - 20,000, Korea - 1.5 million, Vietnam - 1.1 million ). The amoun
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!
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: (Score:3)
Let's invade Boston (Score:3, Insightful)
WMDs in Iraq (Score:5, Interesting)
So there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all!
Re: (Score:3)
So there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all!
I'm starting to wonder if they're trying to confuse the terms on purpose to make the history books read a bit better. Hmm.
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:Why not call him a pedo too? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
weapon of mass destruction to me is exactly what it sounds like. does it cause "mass destruction" if the answer is yes, than it is in fact a weapon of mass destruction. 2 bombs going off in a crowded city seems to fit that definition pretty well IMO
Well, no. Not if the city is still there after the bombs go off. What size was the crater? There was no crater? No weapon of mass destruction then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the cost of the damage is in the millions or billions, and there is a large number of injured or dead, I would call that mass destruction.
If only we could catch those lightning bugs torching our forests.
Re: (Score:2)
weapon of mass destruction to me is exactly what it sounds like. does it cause "mass destruction" if the answer is yes [...]
...Then you're violating the law of conservation of matter, and going to be in a whole lot of trouble once the universe figures out what you have done and catches up with you.
You might weasel out of it by invoking E=mc^2, but the former residents of what used to be the city you tried it in would be justifiably pissed off about it.
Any explosive device is a WMD now? (Score:2)
Well, that means the US and the UK were correct - Iraq *did* have weapons of mass destruction, it had millions of such weapons. Infact, pretty much every country has them.
In sane-land, this is ridiculous. If it wasn't, how about the US stop blocking the extradition for all the IRA terrorists and money men the UK have been seeking for the past 40 years?
Clinton's Law (Score:2)
As an online discussion of different legal definitions of illicit human behavior grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and the definition of "sex" approaches 1. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Clinton's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.
Re: (Score:2)
As an online discussion of different legal definitions of illicit human behavior grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and the definition of "sex" approaches 1. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Clinton's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.
And thus, by your own argument, your argument is invalid. This is an example of "Captain Kirk's Law of Computer Systems Management", and it typically involves a lot of smoke and the use of phrases like "Does not compute!" and "Prime directive!"
Inciting terrorist recruitment? (Score:2)
I wouldn't worry about that. We could give ponies to crippled children and that would somehow be used to recruit terrorists.
State of Fear (Score:2)
Everyone should read it. At least the commentary about how information can be misused to stir up the masses and move society in one direction or another.
[Begin Rant]Unfortunately, that's were "we" have gone with terrorism. It isn't enough to call someone a terrorist. No they used "weapons of mass destruction" because it sounds more terrifying. It isn't enough to call a robber a robber any more either. No, we've starting calling them terrorist now. Anything to arouse the masses and get them worked up.
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.
meaningless like 'hate crime' (Score:3)
Try the guy on 3 counts of murder, a bazillion of attempted murder, and throw in a few parking tickets and douchbag haircut crimes as well. The legal system already accounts for people like this, no need to layer on another helping of hysteria and chest-beating.
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:A Cheapening of the Charges (Score:4, Informative)
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.)
While I agree with most of what you say, calling him "it" doesn't seem helpful. He's still human and I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by excluding him from the species. Sounds like the kind of language that would get a prosecutor a reproach for turning the court into the kind of circus you've advocated avoiding.
He's also not guilty of anything yet.
Authorities, please: Let us not make one more mockery out of legal institutions and charge this criminal appropriately.
Don't make a mockery of legal institutions by assuming a suspect's guilt before his trial.
Re: (Score:3)
He is guilty as HELL. That's an assumption based on evidence I have seen reported; an assumption I am perfectly free to make and one which is entirely warranted. He just hasn't been found guilty in a court of law yet.
The consequence of my assumption is nil. The consequence of false procedure in a court of law, including presumption of guilt, would be very serious.
This is not new (Score:3)
Government Attitude towards Citizens (Score:2)
Not anything new (Score:3)
The simple fact is, and there were people who brought this up during the Bush administration, which is why this is no surprize at all to me now, the law defines just about any explosive intended to harm people as a weapon of mass destruction. This is not new at all. Even while Bush was raving about WMDs in Iraq, the whole time, even a hand grenade was classified as a WMD.
The shocking thing, to my mind is that Bush never used this to his advantage. This dedinition could have easily been used to manufacture some news stories which would lose the details int he shuffle. "We found WMDs!"
What bothers me is that, this happened in MA, and MA specifically doesn't have the death penalty. The AG here should be bending over backwards to make sure he is charged HERE and fight federal attempts on general princible. Banning the death penalty here was done for good reason and he should be working to respect that as an agent of state law not using the federal loophole to allow him to, without any fight, end up in a court that would kill him.
In any case, this is no politically charged charge, its exactly the defined crime under federal law. Its just not clear to me why the federal government should get involved when this seems like one the state can handle.
It's the only way to kill him (Score:4, Informative)
Stupid Prosecutor Tricks (Score:3)
Prosecutors always overcharge the accused because 1) they can do it, and 2) it gives them leverage to get a plea bargain approved and avoid going to court and having to pay for an expensive trial. Because of the federal budget woes right now which has caused courts, the U.S. attorneys' offices (the prosecutors), and the federal public defenders' offices to lay off clerks and lawyers (but not judges) they undoubtedly would not want to go to trial given how hugely expensive it would be. But regardless of whether this guy is charged by the feds or the commonwealth of Massachusetts he at a minimum is going to spend his life in prison, probably a supermax. He could be the Unibomber's cellmate whenever the Supreme Court finally abolishes solitary confinement. Perhaps they could compare notes.
Slippery Dope (Score:3)
Just like the RICO laws resulted in an ever-widening definition of "conspiracy", or corporations becoming more and more "people" over time.
Re:the way I see it (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at the laws themselves it's a bit weird; 18 USC sec. 2332a seems to introduce the term "weapons of mass destruction" for the sole purpose of re-naming a definition provided in 18 USC sec. 921 called "destructive device," which dates to 1934 at the latest. I'm not savvy enough to figure out when the "WMD" terminology was introduced, but it's at least older than 1996 and seems to serve no purpose other than sounding grandiose.
This is why laws should not be permitted to be introduced except that first one cubic inch of flesh and blood should be removed from the legislator's body.
Dead is dead. Murder is murder. If a person deliberately murders someone, we don't need 137 different types of murder law to charge the offender on, just one. Adding more anti-murder laws is grandiose at best and at worst may end up in creating legal loopholes that a broader definition would not.
Re: (Score:3)
WMD in a military context is different than WMD in a civilian criminal law context. There is nothing unusual about that. This is much like there being different standards of treatment under the law of war versus criminal law. The confusion on this point has led to much heated discussion and misunderstanding.
This video [youtube.com] is a representation of the US federal government shooting down Americans en mass without arrest, charge, trial, or conviction. The use of civilian criminal law to address this situation is
Re: (Score:3)
Re:the way I see it (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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: (Score:3)
As long as he gets a fair trial (and by fair I mean a death sentence) [...]
You'd love North Korea's justice system; it is the epitome of "fair" by your twisted standard. Fortunately, most civilized societies have not only abolished the states' power to kill their own people, they enjoy lower murder rates as well. [deathpenaltyinfo.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The criminal definition is different from the military definition. That's all this is. Criminally, a weapon of mass destruction is one that destroys indiscriminately, that's all it really means. Yes, there's a lot of verbiage about the size of the explosive and the delivery mechanisms and whatnot, but the underlying thought is causing indiscriminate death. The thought processes and motives are different and state of mind is an important issue in the legal system.
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: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.
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
They are not the same, that is the of talk that leads to this sort of behavior.
Of course not.
Re:the way I see it (Score:4, Interesting)
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:the way I see it (Score:5, Informative)
Keeping them alive makes the rest of us pay for it...
That's just stupid.
You want him kept alive forever? YOU pay for it... I'd rather pay $.005 for a bullet and be done with it.
You are an idiot. [deathpenaltyinfo.org]
Please stop talking until you learn something about the topic.
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:the way I see it (Score:4)
If we call a pressure-cooker bomb a "weapon on mass destruction", what do we call a nuke? WMD is a term that has long had a fairly well defined meaning: nukes, chemical weapons, bio-weapons. If we make the term mean something else, then we just need a new term. If we are going to make up a new term, the why not use it for small bombs?
Words matter! The debate over WMDs in Iraq will be more confusing in future discussions if we change the meaning of the word. It may seem like a good idea to the US to use words like that for emphasis, but what do we do when we are accused of using WMDs against civilian populations in the form of drone-strikes? Of is Israel is accused of using WMDs against Palestinians and demands are made that the US uphold its treaties?
The boston bomber should be accused of using an explosive device to commit mass murder and mayhem. A conviction on that should put him away for the rest of his life, or execute him.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. "Weapon of mass destruction" has an understood meaning. To me its like calling a bus an aircraft. True it does travel though the air, but not in the manner we associate with the term "aircraft".
A pipe bomb does not cause "mass destruction", so using the word "mass destruction" is confusing.
If we call a pipe bomb a "weapon of mass destruction", what term would we use for a nuke that killed 100,000 people?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case, every bomb the US has ever dropped counts as a WMD.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
For the purposes of criminal law, both the bomb and a Hellfire missile would qualify as weapons of mass destruction. For military purposes, neither are.
Killing while waging war in accordance with the law of war does not constitute murder.
Re:the way I see it (Score:5, Informative)
Cool, so when does the President go on trial for authorizing the murder of civilians using WMDs? [policymic.com]
Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
wonder if the Colorado gun man gets charged as such too.
"killing 12 people and injuring 58 others"
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Bombing vs shooting (Score:3)
Actually the real reason so few died is because there were dozens of medics standing by at the end of the race course anyways.
They were doing medical triage on site 30 seconds after the explosions. That is why only three died. It is also why only those in desperate need were being rushed to the hospital.
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: (Score:3)
Why would you want to strike any kind of a deal with this dirtbag!? The guy has done a terrible deed, admitted so to multiple witnesses, wrote a confession note. Plus they have a boatload of forensic evidence.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Informative)
there is a difference between federal law and state law. Murder is not generally considered a federal offense (in one of the civil rights murders it was federal only because it occurred on federal land http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ex-federal-prosecutor-who-led-historic-case-dies [ap.org])
That is why people entering the country have to say they will not commit a crime while they are here. Any crime they commit is probably only a state issue, but lying on your federal entry form ...
Re: (Score:3)
This makes every explosive the US has ever dropped a "weapon of mass destruction" and means we maintain "weapon of mass destruction fields" between North and South Korea. I say they call it what it is: an explosive device, three murders, several attempted murders, criminal chaos/criminal mischief, assaults with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to murder, etc. There's no reason to go from calling just nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons WMD to making every air force pilot in the world a war criminal just to
Re: (Score:3)
Something tells me the US Military is well aware of what they drop on people and what they were accusing Saddam Hussein of possessing. It wasn't merely that he was alleged to have them, but that he was alleged to have them in contravention of some treaty, wasn't it? The issue wasn't about the items, but about the treaty or punishment or whatever not being followed.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue wasn't about the items, but about the treaty or punishment or whatever not being followed.
My view on the reasons for the 2nd Iraq war.
1. Bush wanting to finish what his father started.
2. Saddam was *constantly* violating the terms of the cease fire. Violating no-fly zones, hiding things, moving troops where he wasn't supposed to, etc... I deployed to Kuwait during that period, we were dropping bombs constantly to enforce the rules.
3. An honest desire to 'clean up' the mess of the past; not create another NK situation. The idea(that didn't pan out nearly as well as hoped) was to lance the p
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: (Score:2)
just ask mayor bloomberg
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/06/mayor-bloomberg-insists-on-statewide-ban-on-sparklers-2671754.html [beforeitsnews.com]