4 ms·

Federal Agents Accuse Two Of Plotting Deadly X-Ray Weapon

4 points by jmadsen 13y ago

jmadsen 13y ago
"The two men were in federal court Wednesday on charges that they conspired to provide material support to terrorists, including use of a weapon of mass destruction." I'm starting to think rolling a large rock down a hill at a group of people would be considered "a weapon of mass destruction" Does the term have any meaning anymore, or is it just a pile-on item to aid in plea bargains?
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  It's very specifically defined in law, and has been since 1994: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a
  - jmadsen 13y ago
    Thank you - that was quite informative, actually. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that that term seems to many people more like a label they hang on "terrorists" rather than something with a specific definition
mpyne 13y ago
For those who only browse the headlines, the U.S. is charging two Americans with plotting to build a weapon to be used to inflict deadly radiation poisoning using X-ray. The victims were to be Muslims and other "enemies of Israel and the U.S.". One of the accused works as an industrial mechanic at General Electric, the other worked at the G.E. plant as a contractor.
- HarryHirsch 13y ago
  The folks were patently cuckoo. If you believe that someone offering to assassinate a fellow through Voodoo ought to be prosecuted then so should these people. If you believe a case against a Voodoo assassin should be thrown out, this case ought to be thrown out.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well as a nuclear-qualified submarine officer I can assure you that whatever else you think about Voodoo, radiation actually does exist
    - HarryHirsch 13y ago
      Sure, but their system of delivey is entirely unfit for purpose, and even the police agrees.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Perhaps, but I'm not sure why we'd give someone "extra credit" just because they were too stupid to sharpen their knife before they plunged it into their victim.
        HarryHirsch 13y ago
        The law does consider outcome, not just intent, doesn't it? A contract killer who offers to kill his victims by voodoo would get a lesser sentenct that someone who offers to use a gun, and this somehow makes sense.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Canada 13y ago
Alledged mastermind Wile Al Coyote is still at large

4 points by jmadsen 13y ago

"The two men were in federal court Wednesday on charges that they conspired to provide material support to terrorists, including use of a weapon of mass destruction." I'm starting to think rolling a large rock down a hill at a group of people would be considered "a weapon of mass destruction" Does the term have any meaning anymore, or is it just a pile-on item to aid in plea bargains?

anigbrowl 13y ago
It's very specifically defined in law, and has been since 1994: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a
- jmadsen 13y ago
  Thank you - that was quite informative, actually. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that that term seems to many people more like a label they hang on "terrorists" rather than something with a specific definition

mpyne 13y ago

For those who only browse the headlines, the U.S. is charging two Americans with plotting to build a weapon to be used to inflict deadly radiation poisoning using X-ray. The victims were to be Muslims and other "enemies of Israel and the U.S.". One of the accused works as an industrial mechanic at General Electric, the other worked at the G.E. plant as a contractor.

HarryHirsch 13y ago
The folks were patently cuckoo. If you believe that someone offering to assassinate a fellow through Voodoo ought to be prosecuted then so should these people. If you believe a case against a Voodoo assassin should be thrown out, this case ought to be thrown out.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well as a nuclear-qualified submarine officer I can assure you that whatever else you think about Voodoo, radiation actually does exist
  - HarryHirsch 13y ago
    Sure, but their system of delivey is entirely unfit for purpose, and even the police agrees.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Perhaps, but I'm not sure why we'd give someone "extra credit" just because they were too stupid to sharpen their knife before they plunged it into their victim.
      - HarryHirsch 13y ago
        The law does consider outcome, not just intent, doesn't it? A contract killer who offers to kill his victims by voodoo would get a lesser sentenct that someone who offers to use a gun, and this somehow makes sense.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Canada 13y ago

Alledged mastermind Wile Al Coyote is still at large