In the Boston Bombing Case, 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' Is In the Eye of the (Government) BeholderJ.D. Tuccille
Apr. 23, 2013
49ers' Colin Kaepernick Throws Career Away to Push False Black Lives Matter Narrative
Belgium: 15yo Muslim Faces Deportation After His Call for Christians to be Killed Goes Viral
Dr. Drew Show Canceled Just Days After He Questioned Hillary's Health
MSNBC Asks Black Man to Watch Hillary Clinton Clip, Shows Him Fried Chicken Commercial Instead
WATCH: The Top Three Videos Mocking Hillary's Alt-Right Speech!
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.