On Boston and WMD

Yesterday, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the younger of the two brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings) was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.  Although the brothers' actions were certainly terrible, do they really warrant the loaded terminology of using WMD?

Yes, according to the current federal statute that defines "weapons of mass destruction."  Specifically, the term "weapon of mass destruction" includes "any destructive device" such as

(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;

As Danger Room's Spencer Ackerman perhaps presciently pointed out almost a month ago, this overbroad definition begins to blur the distinction between types of weaponry.  Ackerman also noted the inherent "threat inflation" when one party accuses another of possessing or using WMD.

While the bombings in Boston were horrific and tragic, they were exactly that -- bombings.  Making any bomb, grenade, or rocket a WMD, however, dilutes the term.  This is the same issues facing international law courts and scholars who must address calls to expand the definition of genocide.  The fact that the Boston killings aren't a WMD attack in the traditional nomenclature does not and should not in any way downplay the horror of the attacks nor lessen the panoply of options available to federal and state prosecutors.  However, aligning federal criminal statutes with the more conventional understanding of WMD terminology would in the end help lessen confusion -- such as that experienced by many when they found out that pressure-cooker bombs are "WMD."