Weapon of mass destruction charge, explained

[unhappycamper]

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/weapon_of_mass_destruction_charge_explained/?source=newsletter



Fragment believed to be part of bomb used in Boston bombings

Weapon of mass destruction charge, explained
By Natasha Lennard
Monday, Apr 22, 2013 02:49 PM EDT

When you hear the term “weapon of mass destruction,” what comes to mind? A nuclear warhead? Biological agents? The sort of armaments so destructive, in fact, they are pitched as grounds for war. Homemade pressure cooker bombs — as we now know all too well — can wreak murderous, flesh- and bone-cleaving devastation. But are the devices used in the Boston bombings really weapons of mass destruction?

The Massachusetts U.S. attorney announced Monday that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be federally charged with “using a weapon of mass destruction against persons and property at the Boston Marathon.” No one would seek to underplay the heinous act that killed three people and injured over 170. But the WMD charge already prompted some confusion, given the DIY nature of the tools used in the bombings. Nukes they were not.

Last month, before the marathon massacre, Wired’s Spencer Ackerman explored the way in which the WMD designation has become so expansive that it is barely descriptive. “U.S. law isn’t particularly diligent about differentiating dangerous weapons from apocalyptic ones,” wrote Ackerman in a post about possible WMD charges brought against Eric Harroun, a U.S. Army veteran who joined the rebellion in Syria. Ackerman noted:

The statutory definition of “weapon of mass destruction” refers to “any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title,” which in turn includes: a “rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces.”

[Newest Reality]

1. "Mass" is an

interesting and flexible term. Though, to me, "bomb" would suffice. WMD has had some useful Orwellian effects and is a primed term that was inserted by the Bush Regime.

So, we know that an M-80 is not an WMD and that an AK-47, say, fired amidst a crowd in a 360-degree circle with one clip of 30 rounds is not a WMD, it is simply a gun. Big difference.

OK. Making a note of that in my official definitions manual. Check.

Ah, enlightenment.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Why wasn't Eric Rudolph, a serial bomber, charged with that?

[Demeter]

3. Probably hadn't been invented by the Ministry of Propaganda yet

Murder and mayhem are so 18th century....

[polmaven]

4. It most certainly is!

They were absolutely meant, IMO, to cause mass destruction, and certainly did cause massive deaths and loss of life.