Everyone here talking about how this definition is stupid is seriously missing the point. Just because the legal use of a term doesn't fit in with your conception of what a WMD is doesn't make it a stupid definition. I think it's clear that the federal government just wanted a separate criminal category for explosives and other extremely hazardous materials (chemical and biological).
Seriously, this should not be the first time that some of you guys have encountered a legal term that doesn't match up with the colloquial sense of the term.
And we shouldn't be predicating crimes on the competence of their perpetrators - their pressure cooker bombs did injure more than a hundred people. Had they engineered it optimally, they likely could have killed tens of more people.
Comments
Everyone here talking about how this definition is stupid is seriously missing the point. Just because the legal use of a term doesn't fit in with your conception of what a WMD is doesn't make it a stupid definition. I think it's clear that the federal government just wanted a separate criminal category for explosives and other extremely hazardous materials (chemical and biological).
Seriously, this should not be the first time that some of you guys have encountered a legal term that doesn't match up with the colloquial sense of the term.
And we shouldn't be predicating crimes on the competence of their perpetrators - their pressure cooker bombs did injure more than a hundred people. Had they engineered it optimally, they likely could have killed tens of more people.