Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site