Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the 30-counts-ought-to-do-it dept.

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?"

15 of 533 comments (clear)

  1. We're making this all up anyway by Anonymous Coward · · 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'.

    1. Re:We're making this all up anyway by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:We're making this all up anyway by Jane+Q.+Public · · 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.)

      ---

    3. Re:We're making this all up anyway by presidenteloco · · 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.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  2. They missed a period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Should it not be weapons of Mass. destruction?

    Or perhaps just weapons of MA destruction?

  3. However by Sparticus789 · · Score: 5, Funny

    By this new definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", Saddam did have WMD's and they were in Iraq.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  4. Oh the irony by ACluk90 · · 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!

    1. Re:Oh the irony by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  5. WMDs in Iraq by JDG1980 · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  6. Why not call him a pedo too? by serviscope_minor · · 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.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  7. Re:the way I see it by Hatta · · 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?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  8. Re:the way I see it by h4rr4r · · 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.

  9. Re:Yes by Frobnicator · · 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.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  10. Re:Yes by yurtinus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks for saving us some time on this one. Want to cause mass hysteria? Use a gun - you'll kill more people than you would with a bomb, and you'll face lesser charges when you're caught!

    --
    +1 Disagree
  11. Nonsense, this is a Corrupt Government spining MSM by Anonymous Coward · · 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