[1eyedjack]

OK, I'm curious. What is the definition of a "weapon of mass destruction"? A nuke? Yup I guess that would fit the bill. Bio weapon? Yup, genie-out-of-the-bottle type microbe that is out of control when unleashed, I would have sympathy with including that. Scud missile? Hmm, beginning to stretch it a bit there in my view. Pressure-cooker bomb? Oh, come on! An automatic assault rifle would have the capacity to do more harm, and I'm betting that there is at least one in every Boston street.

Ah, well, I guess that the US administration can at long last say that they have found one.

[kenberg]

I'm not an expert on definitions but I think mass and massive are very different words. The antonym of massive is small but the antonym of mass is, I think, individual. The bombs were not focused on any specific individuals but rather intended to kill as many random people as possible. So mass destruction, as oppesed to individual destruction, might be correct. But of course it's being used as a legal term so logic does not really apply.


Think of a serial killer. Every Friday night some guy kills a woman walking home from a bus stop. If he is not caught, he will go on and kill 20 or maybe 30. If he is caught after 3 killings, he is still a serial killer. I think mass destruction might very well go the same way. It's not whether or not he successfully kills a massive number of people, it's whether he intends to kill one, two or more specific people or whether he just intends to kill as many as possible and does not much care who they are.

Anyway, it would be ghoulish to set a quota that must be surpassed before it can be considered a mass killing.

[mycroft]

Ken @ Popehat has gone through the U.S. Legal code on exactly "What is the definition of 'WMD'?" (point 4) as well as other legal issues.

[kenberg]

Thanks for this resource, I am impressed with the author's fortitude.

Reading that over, I am really glad that I studied to be a mathematician rather than a lawyer. They make more money but they have to read that stuff? And write it?

Anyway, I would never have thought of a pipe bomb as a wmd but, upon reflection, I can see how the number of people killed should not really be the issue. I think that is what is part of what is being said. And then of course there is interstate commerce. I think all federal laws are required to mention interstate commerce at least once. It's in the Constitution or something.

[ArtK78]

kenberg, on 2013-April-22, 17:49, said:

Thanks for this resource, I am impressed with the author's fortitude.

Reading that over, I am really glad that I studied to be a mathematician rather than a lawyer. They make more money but they have to read that stuff? And write it?

Anyway, I would never have thought of a pipe bomb as a wmd but, upon reflection, I can see how the number of people killed should not really be the issue. I think that is what is part of what is being said. And then of course there is interstate commerce. I think all federal laws are required to mention interstate commerce at least once. It's in the Constitution or something.

Yes, there has to be interstate commerce involved. Otherwise, the federal government would have no authority to act ("jurisdiction"). Without the crime somehow impacting interstate commerce, it would be a crime in Massachusetts, but the federal government would have no jurisdiction, and it would not be a federal crime.

[kenberg]

Yes, I know the general argument. In 1800 there were many things within a state that had nothing to do with other states. In the 21st century more or less everything has something to do with interstate commerce. A jay walker in Chicago is crossing the street to buy the New York Times. There you go, interstate commerce. Ok, maybe not, but close.

We all have things that just bug the hell out of us, and for me it's having to explain that the Boston Marathon involves interstate commerce so that federal law applies. Or maybe that's not the way interstate commerce gets into it, I did not really have the patience to fully digest the legal argument cited above.

[1eyedjack]

mycroft, on 2013-April-22, 17:19, said:

Ken @ Popehat has gone through the U.S. Legal code on exactly "What is the definition of 'WMD'?" (point 4) as well as other legal issues.

wow. was impressed with his erudition until i read one sentence expressing personal judgement that seemed out of place:

Quote

However, as an American, I live in confidence that the government would never exaggerate the existence of WMDs.

whether you possess an incendiary device containing more than 1/4 ounce of explosives is a question of fact that does not lend itself to exaggeration. still, am surprised that they could not find such a device in Iraq after toppling Saddam

[mycroft]

I *think* that's sarcasm - read the previous sentence if you don't agree with me.

[1eyedjack]

mycroft, on 2013-April-23, 09:44, said:

I *think* that's sarcasm - read the previous sentence if you don't agree with me.

Certainly makes more sense. Missed it.

[barmar]

is that a post-Iraq invasion clause? Because by that definition, Saddam Hussein clearly DID have WMDs. But if that definition of WMD could be used to justify invading a country, we could probably invade almost any country bigger than Monaco.

[onoway]

barmar, on 2013-April-23, 10:55, said:

is that a post-Iraq invasion clause? Because by that definition, Saddam Hussein clearly DID have WMDs. But if that definition of WMD could be used to justify invading a country, we could probably invade almost any country bigger than Monaco.

They don't have pressure cookers in Monaco?

[1eyedjack]

I know very little about law. My knowledge of international law would fit on the back of a postage stamp. That said, I have reservations about whether the contrived and artificial definition of WMD as applied in US internal criminal code would carry much weight in an international court in confirming the legal justification for cross-border military action.

I should like to think that common English usage would be applied when interpreting the definition of the term in such circumstances. In the UK, that is often referred to as how it would be interpreted by the "man on the Clapham omnibus". Another term in common usage is the "Elephant test": You may not be sure how to define it but you recognise it when you see it. As I sit on the Clapham omnibus, when I look at a home made pipe bomb or pressure-cooker bomb or whatever, I do not see a WMD.

So by all means let the US judiciary pull the wool over their own eyes and define their terms however ridiculously they see fit for the purposes of prosecuting criminal cases on their own soil, but let us not fall into the trap of assuming that their definitions of terms derived for internal consumption have any relevance in the world at large. As a justification for the invasion of Iraq, a completely different definition of WMD is applied.

[barmar]

I think the main way that WMD rhetoric was used was to try to justify the Iraq invasion to the American public, not any legal body. NATO joined us, and I don't recall the UN sanctioning us, so I don't think we needed to justify it on the international stage.

Who knew that a decade later we'd lower the bar for WMD to include something that a couple of kids could throw together in their apartment?

[mike777]

Criminal (civilian)

For the purposes of US criminal law concerning terrorism,[29] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:
any "destructive device" defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[30]
any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[31]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[32]
any "destructive device" as defined in Title 18 USC Section 921: any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses
any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
any weapon involving a disease organism
any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.

Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,[33] pipe bombs,[34] shoe bombs,[35] and cactus needles coated with botulin toxin[citation needed] have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.

http://en.wikipedia....ass_destruction

[kenberg]

I would hate to see this get bogged down in a semantic debate. Call it a weapon of intermediate destruction if you wish. He has been sought, chased and arrested for killing and maiming people. It's not because of his restraint that he did not kill and maim more, it's just all that he succeeded in doing. He succeeded in killing and maiming enough to warrant whatever punishment the law allows.

[ArtK78]

From a technical legal standpoint, much of the above discussion is downright silly (with all due respect).

The definition of WMDs for purposes of US criminal law is just that - it is a definition for the purposes of US criminal law. It has nothing to do with international conflicts, the war in Iraq, etc. So please do not try to use that definition in discussing any issue involving WMDs in international conflicts.

The point is that this 19 year old is charged with, among other things, violating the US criminal law in that he employed WMDs (as defined in the statute) and thereby caused death and destruction. It is really that simple.

In international conflicts, WMDs typically include chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Explosive devices are thought of as "normal" weapons. But we are not discussing an international conflict.

[mike777]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-23, 23:26, said:

From a technical legal standpoint, much of the above discussion is downright silly (with all due respect).

The definition of WMDs for purposes of US criminal law is just that - it is a definition for the purposes of US criminal law. It has nothing to do with international conflicts, the war in Iraq, etc. So please do not try to use that definition in discussing any issue involving WMDs in international conflicts.

The point is that this 19 year old is charged with, among other things, violating the US criminal law in that he employed WMDs (as defined in the statute) and thereby caused death and destruction. It is really that simple.

no

fwiw I agree with your point about wmd no the rest

--

let me throw out comment that many on bbo will lhate

jhiad =most of terrorists.


many of the so called conser. point of view= this

most of the leftwing...=not

If you don't think that radical islam is huge issue ok.

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2013-April-22, 06:38, said:

As it turns out, they were not making any effort to escape until they were identified. This baffled me: they had almost three days, they could have been anywhere in the world, but there they sat still in Boston.

As a friend of mine used to say "criminals are stupid".

[blackshoe]

1eyedjack, on 2013-April-22, 14:56, said:

OK, I'm curious. What is the definition of a "weapon of mass destruction"? A nuke? Yup I guess that would fit the bill. Bio weapon? Yup, genie-out-of-the-bottle type microbe that is out of control when unleashed, I would have sympathy with including that. Scud missile? Hmm, beginning to stretch it a bit there in my view. Pressure-cooker bomb? Oh, come on! An automatic assault rifle would have the capacity to do more harm, and I'm betting that there is at least one in every Boston street.

Ah, well, I guess that the US administration can at long last say that they have found one.

I'll take that bet, and you'll lose. Automatic weapons are not nearly as widespread in the US as TV and the movies would have us believe. They aren't easy to get, either.

Quote

For the general purposes of national defense, the US Code defines a weapon of mass destruction as:

any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
a disease organism
radiation or radioactivity[26]

By this definition, the bombs used in Boston were not "weapons of mass destruction". At least, so says the Wikipedia article on WMD. Apparently there is another view. It seems the lawyers have, over the years, considerably extended the definition. I suppose pretty soon my penknife will be classified as a WMD. As for me, after twenty years in the military, I'll stick with large scale chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. IEDs don't qualify.

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-24, 01:44, said:

I'll take that bet, and you'll lose. Automatic weapons are not nearly as widespread in the US as TV and the movies would have us believe. They aren't easy to get, either.

Sorry blackshoe, laws restricting or banning guns don't work to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Ergo fully automatic weapons must be almost everywhere despite the lack of evidence of such