It is commonly accepted that no weapons of mass destruction were found after the invasion of Iraq by Bush II.
But is that really true?
To credit that claim, you would have to be unable to find a common pressure cooker in Iraq.
The FBI apparently considers bombs made using pressure cookers to be “weapons of mass destruction.”
How remarkable. I have one of the big pressure canners. That must be the H-Bomb of pressure cookers. 😉
“Weapon of mass destruction” gets even vaguer when you get into the details.
18 USC § 2332a – Use of weapons of mass destruction, which refers you to another section, “any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;” to find the definition.
And, 18 USC § 921 – Definitions reads in relevant part:
(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
Maybe Bush II should have asked the FBI to hunt for “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq.
They would not have come home empty handed.
If this seems insensitive, remember government debasement of language contributes to the lack of sane discussions about national security.
Discussions that could have lead to better information sharing and possibly the stopping of some crimes.
Yes, crimes, not acts of terrorism. Crimes are solved by old fashioned police work.
Fear of acts of terrorism leads to widespread monitoring of electronic communications, loss of privacy, etc.
As shown in the Boston incident, national security monitoring played no role in stopping the attack or apprehending the suspects.
Traditional law enforcement did.
Why is the most effective tool against crime not a higher priority?
“Weapons of Mass Destruction” is a great example of how definitions change depending on what scope they’re being used in. Earlier this week, a friend of mine was incredulous that a pressure cooker bomb would qualify as a WMD. When we investigated the definition, we found the same USCs that you quote here. I also noticed that the Wikipedia article for WMD notes that “airplanes used as missiles” was included in the definition of the term during the Moussaoui trial. Debased language, indeed.
However, this definition only seems to be valid in a civilian criminal context; I don’t think the USC applies outside of the US. In a strategic or military context, “WMD” still seems to be restricted to nuclear, biological, or chemical (NBC) weapons, and in that context, it’s still true that no WMD were found in Iraq. A pressure cooker bomb found in Iraq would likely be classified as an IED. Score one for the military, I guess?
The question over whether national security monitoring is more effective than traditional law enforcement reminds me of the debate over whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should have been tried in a military or a civilian court. We had dozens of politicians clamoring for the military trial, despite the fact that civilian courts typically do a much more rigorous job of trying and convicting terrorists — the military process is much more haphazard and the results are poorer. But it sounds better, because military! Sigh.
Comment by marijane — April 24, 2013 @ 2:06 pm
And the definitions of terrorist varies widely by context as well.
I am not sure how to visualize it but an interactive display using the various definitions of terrorist with the different people who fall into or out of that category could be quite compelling.
Comment by Patrick Durusau — April 26, 2013 @ 5:37 am