Two bomb blasts during the Boston Marathon

[Winston Hughes]

Because it'd be quite easy to just use another entirely distinct term instead?

Why should terminology be changed to appease a bunch of people on the internet who insist that the first use they heard of a term must the only correct one?

Nobody is confused here - the difference in definition based on context is blindingly obvious and, in case anyone had failed to grasp it, the specific and precise legal definition is being quoted as well.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Ah, I see what's going on.

MobBoss is coming out in favor of gun control because a Bushmaster is clearly a WMD.

 

[Camikaze]

Why should terminology be changed to appease a bunch of people on the internet who insist that the first use they heard of a term must the only correct one?

Nobody is confused here - the difference in definition based on context is blindingly obvious and, in case anyone had failed to grasp it, the specific and precise legal definition is being quoted as well.

I don't think anyone has suggested the terminology should be changed to appease them. I think what's being said is that the phrase 'weapon of mass destruction' has a far more prominent meaning; a meaning from which the phrase cannot be entirely divorced. It's not a matter of being oh-so-confused as to what the legal definition here is actually saying, but of wondering if necessarily importing a notorious connotation into a context in which it has no place is really the wisest use of words, of which there are many others to chose from.

You could call the crime 'use of a European swallow' and it'd be blindingly obvious, given the specific and precise legal definition that would be attached to 'European swallow' in the relevant statute, what is being referred to. But that clarity of concept in the context would not be a point in defence of Pythonesque legislating.

 

[bhsup]

Well if you want to restrict it to the big 3, you say NBC warfare. (nuclear, biological, chemical)

Hello?? Did you all just totally bypass this? There -is- a specific term for the big three.

 

[mrt144]

This attack killed 3 people and injured 179. I've read about SCUD ballistic missile attacks that did less than that and there is no doubt a ballistic missile is a WMD.

This attack could have easily killed a lot more people too. I'm actually quite surprised it didn't.

This is lunacy MobBoss. You've made the definition of WMD so broad and meaningless to the point that guns are WMDs and i suspect its only so you can appear 'right' in a 10 year old argument over Iraq.

 

[Evie]

Why should terminology be changed to appease a bunch of people on the internet who insist that the first use they heard of a term must the only correct one?

Nobody is confused here - the difference in definition based on context is blindingly obvious and, in case anyone had failed to grasp it, the specific and precise legal definition is being quoted as well.

The fundamental thing is that no, the legal definition is NOT, in general, being quoted. Sure, in this discussion, it was. But in medias the world over, including in the US, it's not. All that's being said is "Charged with using a weapon of mass destruction". Which, yes, to the vast majority of people, is going to be equated with the completely false charges the US government made against Saddam to justify invading his country. Not just because it's the first way they heard it, but because it'S the only way they ever heard it used,. and, you know, the one that's entirely dominated mass media for the past decade and some. It's perfectly reasonable for people to link the two, especially when the other definition is much more sensible than this one.

What this comes off as is not "oh, well, must be different definition". It's "Wow. Americans are such drama queens aren't they? Always blowing things out of proportion when anyone goes after them." I appreciate that it's not the case, but it's what it looks like.

Even knowing the legal definition, I'm not likely to change my mind on that. Change who I blame, yes. It's obvious now that the DOJ is not to blame, and instead what's to blame is the toad-like brains that Americans keep filling congress with, and their complete lack of anything remotely approaching basic reading comprehension and writing abilities. Because, as previously mentioned, even the Canadian criminal code is better written than that, and the Canadian criminal code is an utter disaster and a half.

----------

VRWC : I used to be enough of a military toys geek as a kid/teen to know about the NBC term. Of course to most people, NBC stands for, well, NBC, but that's besides the point here.

Also I'm not sure that I would restrict this to nuclear, bacteriologic, chemical when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. I could imagine SOME conventional bombs (eg, the infamous MOAB) being legitimate contender for mass destruction. Heck, I could even entertain an argument that the planes of 9-11 were used as weapons of mass destruction.

But when it comes to explosive devices that are far under the basic destructive potential of commonplace, everyday-use (while at war) military weapons...that's just too much stretching "mass" destruction. Which implies something especially destructive, not "anything with even the remotest bit of destructive potential".

 

[Winston Hughes]

I don't think anyone has suggested the terminology should be changed to appease them. I think what's being said is that the phrase 'weapon of mass destruction' has a far more prominent meaning; a meaning from which the phrase cannot be entirely divorced.

But it's not even slightly divorced from that meaning, let alone entirely.

In either case, we're talking about weapons that cause massive destruction. The only difference is in what constitutes massive destruction - it's just a matter of scale, with civilian laws setting the bar lower than would be the case with military nomenclature.

There are countless examples of governments and other organisations using definitions which are euphemistic, misleading, or downright duplicitous, and the US justice system has at least it's fair share of these. But this is one case where the words describe exactly what they appear to describe. In demanding that they use another term so as to avoid confusion with the military use - something which is incredibly unlikely in any legal setting - you're arguing against clarity of communication, asking the law to adopt different terms not because the present ones are unclear, but because they remind you of a political controversy which took place some ten years ago.

The fundamental thing is that no, the legal definition is NOT, in general, being quoted. Sure, in this discussion, it was. But in medias the world over, including in the US, it's not. All that's being said is "Charged with using a weapon of mass destruction". Which, yes, to the vast majority of people, is going to be equated with the completely false charges your government made against Saddam to justify invading his country. Not just because it's the first way they heard it, but because it'S the only way they ever heard it used,. and, you know, the one that's entirely dominated mass media for the past decade and some. It's perfectly reasonable for people to link the two, especially when the other definition is much more sensible than this one.

What this comes off as is not "oh, well, must be different definition". It's "Wow. Americans are such drama queens aren't they? Always blowing things out of proportion when anyone goes after them." Which, quite frankly, is a perfectly reasonable way of thinking, because making any explosive device a WMD stretches "mass destruction" into meaninglessness.

Even knowing the legal definition, I'm not likely to change my mind on that. Change who I blame, yes. It's obvious now that the DOJ is not to blame, and instead what's to blame is the toad-like brains that Americans keep filling congress with, and their complete lack of anything remotely approaching basic reading comprehension and writing abilities. Because, as previously mentioned, even the Canadian criminal code is better written than that, and the Canadian criminal code is an utter disaster and a half.

In choosing its nomenclature, US law should aim above all to avoid giving ill-informed people an excuse to get on their high horses? This really is one of the most pathetic excuses for an argument I've ever heard. Face it, in your rush to attack the United States legal system (and lord knows, there's plenty to criticise there) you guys have just got yourselves worked up over nothing in this case.

 

[mrt144]

The only reason they did as much damage as they did was time and location, not because they were ridiculously powerful. If the definition is so dependent on that context, then there is no way a handgun isnt a WMD

 

[Evie]

With all due respect, this does not describe what it appears to describe. This sets the bar for "mass destruction" at "anything that can actually cause any noticeable amount of destruction". (EG, anything more than breaking glass pans and making bullet holes in walls). Calling it a "Weapon of destruction" would convey the exact same sentiment, without unnecessary superlatives.

I can see being at a lower threshold than in military use. But there has to be SOME threshold if you want to include "mass" in there. If you don't want a threshold, then don't put "mass" in the name.

 

[Gucumatz]

Well at least we can get all those knives salesmen now for the terrorists they are

 

[mrt144]

With all due respect, this does not describe what it appears to describe. This sets the bar for "mass destruction" at "anything that can actually cause any noticeable amount of destruction". (EG, anything more than breaking glass pans and making bullet holes in walls). Calling it a "Weapon of destruction" would convey the exact same sentiment, without unnecessary superlatives.

I can see being at a lower threshold than in military use. But there has to be SOME threshold if you want to include "mass" in there. If you don't want a threshold, then don't put "mass" in the name.

It also makes the absurdity of the whole "Saddam has WMD" argument even more apparent.

 

[Winston Hughes]

With all due respect, this does not describe what it appears to describe. This sets the bar for "mass destruction" at "anything that can actually cause any noticeable amount of destruction". (EG, anything more than breaking glass pans and making bullet holes in walls). Calling it a "Weapon of destruction" would convey the exact same sentiment, without unnecessary superlatives.

I can see being at a lower threshold than in military use. But there has to be SOME threshold if you want to include "mass" in there. If you don't want a threshold, then don't put "mass" in the name.

I haven't examined the text itself and, in any case, I'm no lawyer so I can't be sure what the term might be stretched to. Perhaps the law could end up including things for which the term 'mass destruction' would actually be inaccurate. And, in that case, there would certainly be an argument against the wording of the law in question.

But with regards to this case, the idea that the term 'weapon of mass destruction' is somehow inappropriate when it comes to someone using explosives packed with shrapnel in a crowded space with the specific aim of killing and maiming hundreds of people...

Even if there was a case that there are better terms that could be used, this would still be amongst the mildest possible examples of bad terminology.

 

[Evie]

Indeed.

The definition in itself is bad; coupled with the same government using the same terms as something bad enough to justify military invasion it just hit facepalm level.

I agree it's a relatively MILD example of bad terminology. Still bad, but there's worse in the US law books. That's why I'm facepalming and headdesking (a largely comical reaction in the "Really, guys?" vein), and not losing much/any sleep about it. Really bad terminology being used abusively would result in much, much, much worse than this.

As for the Canadian criminal code comparison, I blame general law student exasperation with poorly written laws. This is in fact something that you wouldn't see in the Canadian Criminal Code, which is indeed a mess, but it's not messy due to strange and abusive definition so much as it's messy because it's a completely disorganized mess with absolutely no sense nor reason in which part of the code goes where.

Now I,m sure there are stranger and worse definitions in US law, especially US tax law. Mostly because 1)That's where they are in CANADA's tax law, and 2)Every dual citizenship type I've ever spoken to is unanimous on American tax law being infinitely worse than its Canadian counterpart.

 

[warpus]

Guys, this was not a "weapon of mass destruction"

This was a "weapon of medium-sized terror"

 

[Gucumatz]

Whats a "small scale" size then?

 

[dutchfire]

Luis Suarez.

 

[Winston Hughes]

There's nothing small about his teeth...

 

[Disgustipated]

Why is CNN showing how to make a pressure cooker bomb. Daily Fail did it a few days ago. Stupid news organizations. Yes I know you can find this information, but why make it easier for casual nutcases to perform? Those bombings are scary because they are easy to get away with (if you manage to avoid getting on camera which these 2 didn't).

And for the record. IED's are not weapons of mass destruction.

 

[AlpsStranger]

It doesn't matter much Disgustipated. The lack of instructions isn't what's keeping people from making bombs.

Generally we don't make bombs because we're not interested in murder and terror.

 

[JollyRoger]

Us good guys should know how to make bombs so we can defend ourselves against bad guys with bombs. CNN is doing a public service.