View Full Version : New WMD?
I heard today that to bolster the charges against the Boston bomber his pressure cooker bomb has been classified as a WMD. As terrible as that bombing was, I'm just not seeing a weapon that kills three people as having caused mass destruction. Three hundred? Probably. Three thousand? Certainly. Three? Not so sure that fits in the same category. I'm not trying to sound jaded or to diminish the pain that was inflicted by the bombs in Boston, it just seems to me that this is yet another vague definition in our legal codes that can be applied as desired. A little latitude to allow prosecutors to do their jobs is a good thing, but this just strikes me as silly.
That would make many guns WMD's, wouldn't it? Or at least put them in the same category.
That would make many guns WMD's, wouldn't it? Or at least put them in the same category.
I don't think so. The pressure cooker bomb was designed as an offensive explosive ordnance, not a defensive weapon. The design intent must be taken into consideration.
Basically, they defined WMD for legal purposes as much broader, some time ago, so they could nab regular old bombers.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a
For purposes of this section—
...
(2)the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A)any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B)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;
(C)any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D)any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B)any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, 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; and
(C)any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.
I don't think so. The pressure cooker bomb was designed as an offensive explosive ordnance, not a defensive weapon. The design intent must be taken into consideration.
Actually the suspects used explosives when trying to get away from the police. So those ones would not be WMD's because they were defensive weapons?
But the point I was trying to make was to agree that classifying something that isn't big enough to cause mass destruction a weapon of mass destruction does not make a lot of sense. Defining reality based on what is expedient is not a power I want the state to have.
Basically, they defined WMD for legal purposes as much broader, some time ago, so they could nab regular old bombers.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
I take it back - I may have used a WMD myself (firecracker cannon). It's still pretty silly that it is legally on par with setting off a nuclear device.
Geez. I'm eating chicken curry I just took out of mine. Am I going to have to register it, I wonder...
What happened in Texas at the fertilizer plant should have quite a few negligent and greedy company, city/state officials charged with WMD! I'm more worried about these kinds of internally destructive things happening to our country than some random idiots here and there causing havoc.
Sadly, I doubt much will change after this incident in Texas, nor do I expect anyone will do any jail time.
Wildflower
4-22-13, 9:29pm
I was reading about the numbers of people severely injured, and those that had amputation surgeries just today. I imagine these people would classify it as a WMD...
Thirty years ago, there was the Bhopal disaster (in India). Greenpeace estimates 20,000 casualties and thousands more were poisoned. Union Carbide got a slap on the wrist. Some things never change.
If you don't define something, then people complain that there isn't any definition and therefore determinations are arbitrary.
If you define it comprehensively, with ten or twenty degrees differentiating different levels of egregiousness, then people complain about excessive bureaucracy, and complain when even the twenty degrees aren't enough to differentiate two things that in their own minds should be considered differently.
My personal preference would be to hinge the distinction on potential number of people harmed. It shouldn't be hard to come up with an objective way of determining what can harm whom - after all, the Mythbusters can very effectively do so.
I would want any firearm with a larger clip to be classified as a WMD. The medium of dispensing harm shouldn't matter.
I would want any firearm with a larger clip to be classified as a WMD. The medium of dispensing harm shouldn't matter.
So, if the medium doesn't matter, should an airliner or train or cruise ship or high-rise building in an earthquake zone be classified as a WMD?
Possession of such things should indeed be regulated, just like we regulate large stores of various chemicals which can be used for such purposes. Luckily, all of the items on your list are regulated.
So, if the medium doesn't matter, should an airliner or train or cruise ship or high-rise building in an earthquake zone be classified as a WMD?
Actually this discussion makes me think the whole WMD classification is pretty pointless - like bringing down a skyscrapers or a federal building using an airliner is somehow less heinous than if it was done with homemade explosives.
Intent should be considered from a couple of angles, including that of the manufacturer of a specific item along with the end user. The intent behind building a nuclear warhead seems obvious enough, but almost anything else can be used in a capacity other than what it was designed for so trying to include things like airliners would create a never ending loop. A pressure cooker isn't a weapon, IMO. The only way mine will ever hurt anyone is through negligence in it's use. If I were to adapt it in the same way the Boston bombers did it can obviously be used as a weapon although it is still only capable of inflicting damage in a very localized fashion so still not capable of mass destruction. Now if I filled that cooker with explosives and a couple pounds of ricin and blew it up at the Super Bowl killing thousands of people that would, again IMO, qualify as mass destruction.
I would want any firearm with a larger clip to be classified as a WMD. The medium of dispensing harm shouldn't matter.
I just don't understand the "large clip" argument. Smaller magazines won't stop a crazy person hell bent on inflicting harm, but I guess that's another debate. More on point, the notion of classifying a firearm as a WMD falls into the same argument that an airliner or a pressure cooker does. Ultimately it is the intent and later the associated actions of the end user that determines whether any item is harmful or not.
Actually this discussion makes me think the whole WMD classification is pretty pointless - like bringing down a skyscrapers or a federal building using an airliner is somehow less heinous than if it was done with homemade explosives.
That's about where I'm ending up too, creaker.
Smaller magazines won't stop a crazy person hell bent on inflicting harm, but I guess that's another debate.I'm not so sure it is: The 'M' in WMD is "mass" meaning "a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity." It seeks to differentiate between violence aimed at individuals or small groups and violence aimed at larger groups.
Agreed, with the definition of "mass" at least. All I'm saying regarding classifying certain firearm/magazine combinations as WMDs is that a larger magazine does not make a firearm any more or less capable of inflicting 'mass' violence than multiple smaller magazines would. I'm not sure the outcome in Boston would have been any different if pressure cooker capacity were limited to 6 quarts instead of 12 quarts. Either way the damage is ultimately caused by the user of the tool, not the tool itself, which is why the WMD classification for common objects loses relevance when used in conjunction with small scale events.
ApatheticNoMore
4-23-13, 12:21pm
Is the purpose of classifying it as a WMD even for regulation (and how exactly do they plan to regulate pressure cookers, is anyone other than in jest proposing background checks or tracking of pressure cookers purchases or something?). If your plan for making society safe is tracking or banning everything that could possibly be used to make small bombs or weapons (including fertilizer and including gasoline - motor oil, gasoline - the amount in a tank of gas would more than suffice - so are molotov cocktails WMDS?) it seems to me you need a plan B.
I've heard the only point of classifying it as a WMD is to make the death penalty an option. The people of MA have, quite rightly in my view, outlawed the death penalty, but it seems in this case you could have federal involvement WMD or not.
Q: where did they learn about making pressure cooker bombs anyway?
A: the anarachist COOKBOOK - da da dum (maybe the pressure cooker recipes edition)
Sorry, that's bad :). Remember folks pressure cookers don't kill people .... only outlaws will have pressure cookers ...
I would want any firearm with a larger clip to be classified as a WMD.
Well dang, there were WMDs in Iraq after all.
Q: where did they learn about making pressure cooker bombs anyway?
A: the anarachist COOKBOOK - da da dum (maybe the pressure cooker recipes edition)
Sorry, that's bad :). Remember folks pressure cookers don't kill people .... only outlaws will have pressure cookers ...
Available online for $3.95. They take Visa!
I'm with Gregg and the others who say that the intented use of a tool rather than the tool itself should be the deciding factor in determining what is both a WMD or even a just a weapon. Some grandma killed 8 people last night with her car, yet her car was neither intended to be either a WMD or even a weapon. She had no intent to kill even though she did. She didn't purchase her car with the intent to use it as a weapon to kill. She didn't load it with gas and hop on the freeway with the intent to kill. Jane didn't buy her pressure cooker with the intent to use it as a weapon to kill. She didn't load it with curried chicken with the intent to kill - even if her guests died from her cooking :-)!
If your plan for making society safe is tracking or banning everything that could possibly be used to make small bombs or weapons (including fertilizer and including gasoline - motor oil, gasoline - the amount in a tank of gas would more than suffice - so are molotov cocktails WMDS?) it seems to me you need a plan B.
People interested in Plan A should take a look through this book before getting too far down that road:
http://www.thecompliancecenter.com/store/media/catalog/product/e/r/erg2012.jpg
(Oh, and there are free iPhone apps with the book, in case you don't want to bother carting around the brick.)
Many classes of first responders are now required to receive ~40 hours of training in HAZMAT awareness and operations. Tens of thousands of people a year are trained in what is basically a graduate course in How To Be A Better Terrorist...
The Boston Marathon guys were amateurs. We were taught several different ways we could wipe out good portions of the city of Seattle with a few hours of planning and effort...
The Boston Marathon guys were amateurs. We were taught several different ways we could wipe out good portions of the city of Seattle with a few hours of planning and effort...
That's been one thing that's a bit irksome about some of the media coverage on this event. I've gotten endless information from interviewed professionals reviewing what the bombers did wrong and how it could be done better. And so has anyone who might want to copy it.
Like bae said, the info is out there and accessible. And unfortunately that genie won't be going back in the bottle even if the mainstream media were to cease commenting on it.
awakenedsoul
4-23-13, 9:30pm
I'm surprised at the casual attitude on this forum towards what these men did. I find it horrifying. He killed a police officer, innocent people, and many more were horribly injured. He was hoping to kill more. From what I read, he even tried to kill himself by placing the gun in his mouth. The story I read said the bullet went out the back of his neck.
I certainly hope that anyone who commits a crime like this receives the death penalty. I don't usually read this part of the forum, but it sounds like many people have become desensitized to violence. I feel empathy for the victims and their families. I don't see this as minimal at all. How would you feel if it were you in the hospital? I think it's atrocious.
It seems like some people are relating more to the bomber than to the victims and their loved ones.
I think perhaps you are reading a different thread than this one, which seems to be about the definition of "WMD" and the fact that this terrorist was charged with using WMDs.
I don't see the attitudes here you are foisting upon us.
And I'm resolutely against the death penalty, even for cases like this, because I do not think killing in cold blood is a generally a moral thing to do, given other options. To delegate the power to the State to slowly, methodically kill in my name is deeply repulsive to me. Probably a different thread.
Awakenedsoul, I also do not see anyone here diminishing the impact on victims, supporting terrorists or otherwise taking a casual approach to the events in Boston. As bae stated above this thread was started to discuss the legal and practical definition of a weapon of mass destruction and the further application of that definition. The idea was basically to gather input on what people think a WMD actually IS since the government seems content to apply the term as they see fit regardless of the scope of the destruction. If you would like to get an accurate gauge on how people here feel about the bombers, the victims, appropriate punishment if found guilty, etc. a new thread with that emphasis might be the way to go. This thread is academic, but one like that would give people a chance to express anger, grief, fear, sadness and all the other emotions that come from such tragic events. There is already a thread in the Open Forum that is a little more along those lines if you would rather not start a new one.
ToomuchStuff
4-24-13, 10:52am
I heard today that to bolster the charges against the Boston bomber his pressure cooker bomb has been classified as a WMD. As terrible as that bombing was,
I am not surprised. Knowing the amount of LEO's that I do, there are times they "throw everything they can think of" at someone:
To raise or suspend bail
To make sure something sticks (lawyers will knock down or plea out)
To make such a case that the person rolls over and cooperates against others
Because that person was a jacka.. to them.
I do not believe it is a weapon of "mass destruction" but certainly one of "mass panic". That is one reason we have lawyers and juries (such things as Jury nullification). As it has been told to me, law enforcement enforces the law, they don't know the law, as it is fluid. (I could actually attest to that, after asking a leo relative something and finding his information to be better then seven years out of date)
What is the legal difference between causing mass panic and destruction, I don't know. I haven't seen the list of charges, but I would expect to see conspiracy (remember the trial of the Chicago 7/8?). I also have a few relatives who went through the hazmat training and agree there is a lot of ways someone could do mass damage, as well as access to the information.
In the end, though, we are not the jury.
Good point TMS. It IS very common to add all sorts of charges that may, or may not, actually be valid for all the reasons you mentioned. I also don't consider the type of bomb used as being catorized as a WMD for legal purposes (which I believe is only a fed law and not a state law) but mass panic (if that is a legal chargable law) it may be. I'll have to look that up. Might fall in the realm of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded area.
ETA: Well I just looked up the Massacuttets (however it's spelled) laws and they didn't have anything about causing a mass panic but they did have the false fire alarm law - punishable with a $100 fine.
From a federal legal website:
"Inducing panic is when a person causes the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:
Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;
Threatening to commit any offense of violence;
Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.
Laws governing inducing panic vary from state to state. Inducing panic is usually defined as a misdemenor."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.