In the Boston Bombing Case, 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' Is In the Eye of the (Government) BeholderJ.D. Tuccille
Apr. 23, 2013
1.Trump Rips Bill Kristol: "All The Guy Wants to do is Kill People and Go to War"
2.UK Home Secretary Theresa May Hails "Benefits" of Sharia Law
3.Migrants Thank 89-Yr-Old Austrian Man Who Gave Them Euros by Robbing Him
4.The Huffington Post Is What Happens When There's No Men In The Room
5.VIDEO: Telemundo Busted Staging Shot at Anti-Trump Protest
6.Is This The Most Fail Interview Of All Time?
7.VIDEO: Trump Mocks Journo Who Says Calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" is "Very Offensive"
8.Angry Birds Movie is Red-Pilled Anti-Immigration Propaganda
Even for those of us who think there's no hole too deep into which to drop somebody who bombs innocent people, the "weapon of mass destruction" charge brought against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev seems a bit of a stretch. Isn't "weapons of mass destruction" an awkward term meant to encompass killing devices designed to take out cities and armies? As it turns out, though, the term is a bit loose. It's not so loose as to apply to anything, but it comes pretty damned close.