In the Boston Bombing Case, 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' Is In the Eye of the (Government) BeholderJ.D. Tuccille
Apr. 23, 2013
WATCH: Did Hillary Clinton Give Hand Signals to Debate Moderator Lester Holt?
Feminists Say It's 'Racist And Sexist' for Italians to Have Italian Babies
Here's A List Of Lester Holt's Incredibly Biased Questions
WATCH: Did Hillary Clinton Have a 'Seizure' During Last Night's Debate?
Online Polls Show Donald Trump Won First Presidential Debate
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.