Terror inflation
The AP is reporting that the Nigerian underpants bomber has been indicted on charges of “trying to use a weapon of mass destruction.” (Indictment PDF) Which is really weird, because I thought he tried to set off explosives (specifically, PETN). Aren’t weapons of mass destruction chemical, biological, or nuclear in nature, and therefore capable of, you know, destroying things en masse?
But nope, there it is, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B (TERRORISM), Section 2332a: “the term ‘weapon of mass destruction’ means… any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title.” Which is to say, basically anything that goes boom, including guns with a bore greater than a half inch (shotguns exempt).
If I were a betting man, I would bet this is a recent (dare I say “post-nine-eleven”?) change in the criminal code, designed to make terrorists appear more sinister/dashing. And indeed, the Web site I cited indicates that Section 2332a (“weapons of mass destruction”) of Title 18 was modified by Congress on January 5, 2009.
I have no idea how one would go about digging up old versions of Title 18 to find out if this is a recent definition. The take-away, though, is that now you can build a pipe bomb (or what the hell, a cannon) and go around bragging that you’re hiding WMD. (Although you might have to be a Muslim for it to count.)
January 7th, 2010 at 08:21
So, per Title 18, Saddam had a giant pile of WMDs! Hell, at one point, I think the iraqi army had a couple thousand artillery tubes of all sizes, and every last one of those breachloading, modern cannons is a DD under NFA law.
Just scanning your link, I thought it was odd that the offenses have the broadest possible sentencing range “any term of years”. So technically, the underwear bomber can get less time in jail than an 18 year old that sends his buddies a picture of his 17 year old girlfriend in her underwear. See 18 USC 2252A.