Can someone explain the legal difference between Weapon of Mass Destruction (henceforth WMD) and bomb?
Is WMD a stretch in this case? A bombing.....absolutely; but a WMD'ing?
Really?
How say u?
Can someone explain the legal difference between Weapon of Mass Destruction (henceforth WMD) and bomb?
Is WMD a stretch in this case? A bombing.....absolutely; but a WMD'ing?
Really?
How say u?
Did the prosecution say they would still ask for the death penalty if he plead guilty?
Yes
For the purposes of US criminal law concerning terrorism,[32] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:
any "destructive device" defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[33]
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
any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[34]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Criminal_.28civilian.29
Wiki, appreciate the prompt response. So any bombing is now considered a terrorist attack...even a bombing by a US citizen disgruntled postal employee?
messi wrote:
Wiki, appreciate the prompt response. So any bombing is now considered a terrorist attack...even a bombing by a US citizen disgruntled postal employee?
Welcome to the police state
you think you're pretty smart don't you? most of your questions are frivolous at best, and pertain to speciously related incidents in other cases. go home.
exactly. there's a cost benefit process for the defence - fighting over points that are clear cut is not beneficial. laying traps for possible appeal... now you're on to something.
bomber
messi wrote:
Wiki, appreciate the prompt response. So any bombing is now considered a terrorist attack...even a bombing by a US citizen disgruntled postal employee?
I'm not sure if that's a straight question or if you've deliberately inserted some provocative subtext. Are you are objecting to the notion of a "US citizen disgruntled postal employee" being labelled a terrorist?
Maybe this isn't what you're trying to say, but I'm basically reading that as "only FOREIGN bombers should be called terrorists!!".
messi wrote:
Wiki, appreciate the prompt response. So any bombing is now considered a terrorist attack...even a bombing by a US citizen disgruntled postal employee?
No, it's considered using a weapon of mass destruction if the bomb fits into the definition above.
Just because someone uses a WMD does not mean it is terrorism.