In the Boston Bombing Case, 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' Is In the Eye of the (Government) BeholderJ.D. TuccilleReason Apr. 23, 2013 |
'We Own This Country': Mark Levin Says Pro-Palestine Protesters Should be 'Rounded Up and Deported'
Trump Meets With DeSantis in 'Quest for Donors,' Calls for Protests to be Shut Down One Day Later
Zionist Mob Attacks Pro-Palestine Protesters at UCLA While Screaming 'Second Nakba'
Israel-Ukraine $95B Aid Bill Includes Provision to 'Supercharge Mass Migration From the Middle East'
Rep. Thomas Massie Warns Congress is Trying to Pass Hate Speech Laws to Outlaw Criticism of Israel
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 |