In the Boston Bombing Case, 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' Is In the Eye of the (Government) BeholderJ.D. TuccilleReason Apr. 23, 2013 |
Mike Johnson Pushes Debunked Lie That Israeli Babies Were 'Cooked in Ovens' On October 7
'It Has to Be Stopped': Netanyahu Demands Pro-Palestine Protests at U.S. Colleges Be Shut Down
'These Protesters Belong in Jail': Gov. Abbott Cheers Arrest of Pro-Palestine Protesters at UT Austin
Claim Jewish Student Was 'Stabbed In The Eye' by Pro-Palestine Protester Draws Mockery After Video Released
'Sniper Seen on Roof Overlooking Pro-Palestine Protest' at Indiana University
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. Read More |