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?"

Comments

the way I see it

[ganjadude]

I dont have a problem with the term being used. it is a legitimate term. The bombs did in fact cause "mass destruction" therefore he did use a weapon of mass destruction. Having said that he should simply be hung in the center of boston when this is all over with, i dont care what they call it as long as he is left lifeless in the end. If he gets a life sentence instead of death I can just see the riots that will break out in boston

Re:We're making this all up anyway

[Curunir_wolf]

Yes. Why is a small explosive a WMD but an assault rifle with multiple large magazines, which is much more deadly, is perfectly legal?

It's NOT "much more deadly" - unless you take one to a place where everyone else has been disarmed.