#593695 - 04/23/1304:02 PMRe: "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
[Re: steveg]
six_of_one
Pool Bar
Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 4474
Loc: Alexandria, VA
Originally Posted By: steveg
It appears that the definition varies or is interpreted differently between different LE agencies and the military. RM had an interesting segment on it last night.
I was able to just now watch that. All I can say is great minds think alike ;-)
The Murrah Bld bombing I think was a WMD based on it's sheer size of the explosion. This one is a lot less and therefore questionable. read, . . a big stretch !
It's a hard thing to define, this WMD. Was the Murrah Building explosive a WMD? It was certainly a powerful explosion, but even so it wasn't in the same category as the things you named--a nuke or a biological agent. It's a very slippery slope.
OK, While we're still jumping thru hoops and doing back bends trying to make various definitions fit...
What about Jumbo Jets?
From the FBI definition posted earlier:
"The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon ..."
So I gather a Jumbo Jet would not qualify ...
...well, given the extent of the damage leveled upon multiple countries, casualties & treasure...
#593740 - 04/24/1303:13 AMRe: "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
[Re: carp]
six_of_one
Pool Bar
Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 4474
Loc: Alexandria, VA
Quote:
The dictionary is clear - does NOT include explosives.
Unfortunately, the dictionary doesn't determine law. As we've seen by the links in this thread, the law applicable to the FBI is different than the one applying to the DoD, with definitions varying accordingly ...
Alas, there doesn't seem to be a universal definition, at least as far as law is concerned, which is the problem ...
Previous Topic
Index
