Skip to main content

View Diary: Who We Are: The Public Arraignment of the Boston Terror Suspect (276 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Strictly looking at the legal definitions (6+ / 0-)

    not political elements, this language makes the government case harder. That's all  am saying.

    I doubt some judge will question  it either, but that presents a problem because to me not questioning it and looking at the lack of clarity in the language speaks of the judicial playing politics however much people may like the outcome in this case.

    The law itself doesn't make this clear.

    Glossing it over can come back to bite us in the ass because of the over broad application.

    In other words , if a pressure cooker counts, what doesn't count?

    Why weren't the spree killers also charged in this manner? Are we seriously arguing that there's some real difference based on fact one had guns that could kill massive numbers of people and a bomb (how ever loosely defined)?

    And what happens with device that can't quite so easily be included?

    I also don't have any idea what you mean at the end by a deal for information? What information? Are you assuming that this is a wider case than the 2 brothers? On what basis?

    I am looking for something more logical than "its two Muslims therefore it must have been more than 2 lone wolves" Guns and weapons aren't an indicator of something more. Nor are the trips, without more, an indicator of something more. Its just as possible the older brother was a wannabe.  One of the t hings that bothers me about that "its more theory" is where are the wider parties taking credit?  Why do they seem so poorly trained? They weren't idiots. Etc.

    •  under section 921, a bomb is a WMD. (11+ / 0-)

      nothing at all complicated.  (921 is incorporated by the WMD statute)

      •  Citations (4+ / 0-)

        Here:

        http://swampland.time.com/...

        and

        Here

        http://www.theatlanticwire.com/...

        Discussing whether its clear whether the term is over broad.

        In both case, the answer is likely not, but it is not certainly not as you and others keep stating.  This is part of my basis for saying that a murder case in state court would be stronger factually than the federal  case.

        Assertion is not rebuttal.

        •  no disagreement from Time. (6+ / 0-)

          " Did the Boston bombers really use WMD? Legally, yes."

          and see the statute below (click on the link to 921).  

        •  He's charged with using bombs of a certain (0+ / 0-)

          type and/or size.  What's it matter what label the law puts on it?  The specifications are laid out in the law.  So the law called the weapons that it specifies "Weapons of Mass Destruction".  So what?  The law could have labeled them "daisies and lollipops" and it should make no difference.  "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."  If the weapon used fits the specifications laid out in the law, then the weapon used is in the category of weapons specified by law; the name the law put on the category is irrelevant.

          At least that's the way I see it.  I don't get the uproar over the "WMD" label.

          •  you are discussing a criminal law and asking (0+ / 0-)

            what different does it make what the criminal law he charged with says?

            Lord. Is this a right wing site now?

            •  actually (0+ / 0-)

              that analysis was pretty accurate, the law lays out several categories of weapons that are considered weapons of mass destruction.   One doesn't have to name a pressure cooker as a bomb,  it isn't a bomb.  But what they left on the sidewalk to kill people was not a pressure cooker, it was a device known to be a bomb.   And the law could create an odd name for something and define its characteristics, and it would be what the law said, regardless of the common meaning of the word.   Same thing with words that the law finds to be terms of art, words that don't have their ordinary meanings in a specific industry or setting, and then the term of art is looked at with its own meaning, regardless of the common usage or the fact that average people might be confused.

    •  It May Have to Do With Deaths Per Usage?? (0+ / 0-)

      A gun can only kill multiple people (usually, depending on ammo) with multiple shots. One detonation of a bomb can kill multiple people and do a lot of property damage too.

      Is there any legal concept that falls anywhere near that view?

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 06:19:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, its not that simple (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade
        "As it happens, the feds applied this narrow WMD definition just last month, when they charged a former U.S. soldier with fighting alongside a terrorist group aiding the Syrian rebellion. A federal affidavit accused Eric Harroun of conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction for firing rocket-propelled grenades in the ranks of Syria’s radical Al Nusra Front. That stirred up a long-running academic and policy debate about the term’s usage."
        Read more: http://swampland.time.com/...
    •  I know there are some new laws since McVeigh (0+ / 0-)

      and Nichols but I forget now, what charges did they get convicted on? I just remember them getting convicted on a large number of federal charges. I think there was some sort of mass destruction in there or I am just confusing that with mass murder charges ?  As there were far more people killed in OK City than in Boston.
       

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 07:50:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site