In the Boston Bombing Case, 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' Is In the Eye of the (Government) BeholderJ.D. Tuccille
Apr. 23, 2013
Ann Coulter: 'They Hate This Country And Want to Replace Us'
White House Trolls Media: 'What You Need To Know About The Violent Animals Of MS-13'
Transgender Woman Sues Spa After Muslim Employee Refuses to Perform Waxing
WashPo: White People Must Be Made To Pay A Price For Calling The Police On Black People
Evergreen Cuts Budget By $6M Due to Enrollment Plunge, Plans For Layoffs
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.