Explosions at Boston Marathon

[Barrister]

Thomas Friedman said the best response to the Boston Marathon bombings is a carbon tax

Speaking of taxes there is talk of a new entry fee charged at all US borders.  Politicians in Northern States are concerned it will harm their local economies by reducing the number of Canadians coming south to purchase goods and services.  Canadian retailers are secretly jumping for joy at the prospect that some of the 21 billion spent annually by Canadians in the US will be spent at home.

Ick. Those things suck.  I have to pay a "reciprocity fee" for me and my two kids to get into Argentina.

Why would you go to Argentina? Everyone knows Spanish speaking South American countries are terrible.

Err, it's not like the non-spanish speaking south american countries are all that great...

[OttoVonBismarck]

Parts of Brazil are amazing.

[Barrister]

Parts of Brazil are amazing.

Not the parts I saw.

[Caliga]

Parts of Brazil are amazing.

Not the parts I saw.

Beeb was in the part of Brazil where river fish swim into people's weiners.

[KRonn]

U.S. Code isn't generally the same as trade terms. From a military perspective for example DoD would never classify a gunpowder bomb as a WMD, but what I pasted was U.S. Code which can use whatever definitions its writers wanted in defining terms of criminal statutes.

Yeah, I figured it was something like that, but it's still funny.

Other nations may have similar type provisions in their civil law, I'd think.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, if you were legitimately in the uncivilized parts of Brazil you'd have to be a super nerdy anthropologist or some nature freak to enjoy that shit.

[Barrister]

Yeah, if you were legitimately in the uncivilized parts of Brazil you'd have to be a super nerdy anthropologist or some nature freak to enjoy that shit.

Nah, nothing like that.

I was in Salvador, Bahia.  It was very hot and very poor.

[Malthus]

U.S. Code isn't generally the same as trade terms. From a military perspective for example DoD would never classify a gunpowder bomb as a WMD, but what I pasted was U.S. Code which can use whatever definitions its writers wanted in defining terms of criminal statutes.

Yeah, I figured it was something like that, but it's still funny.

Other nations may have similar type provisions in their civil law, I'd think.

It isn't the fact of harshly punishing people who kill people using these weapons that amuses, it's the use of the term.

After all the hoopla and fear around the concept of "WMDs", it's a bit of a let-down that your average industrial firework could probably qualify.

[Barrister]

U.S. Code isn't generally the same as trade terms. From a military perspective for example DoD would never classify a gunpowder bomb as a WMD, but what I pasted was U.S. Code which can use whatever definitions its writers wanted in defining terms of criminal statutes.

Yeah, I figured it was something like that, but it's still funny.

Other nations may have similar type provisions in their civil law, I'd think.

It isn't the fact of harshly punishing people who kill people using these weapons that amuses, it's the use of the term.

After all the hoopla and fear around the concept of "WMDs", it's a bit of a let-down that your average industrial firework could probably qualify.

I would think it's not so much the size of the weapon, but how it was used.

[Malthus]

I would think it's not so much the size of the weapon, but how it was used.

That's just it. A "weapon of mass destruction" certainly implies a scale of, well, "mass destruction". Like a nuke .

That's its original meaning, and it most certainly implies something by way of scale. It is ludicrous that a "missile" with a "warhead" of a quarter-ounce of explosive is a "weapon of mass destruction". It makes a mockery of the term.

Now obviously for legal purposes the feds can define the term any way they want, but I'd have thought they would use a term better suited, rather than hijacking an existing term that means something entirely different. 

[Darth Wagtaros]

What's the deal with calling the bombs weapons of mass destruction? Seems like it opens the door to calling every drone strike or mortar round as a WMD too.

[DGuller]

I would think it's not so much the size of the weapon, but how it was used.

I know people are trying to be nice when they say that, but I'm so sick of hearing it. 

[garbon]

I would think it's not so much the size of the weapon, but how it was used.

I know people are trying to be nice when they say that, but I'm so sick of hearing it. 

Maybe you need to stop considering it a weapon.

[crazy canuck]

I would think it's not so much the size of the weapon, but how it was used.

Ah, that age old excuse for the weapon size challenged.

[dps]

What happens if his throat wound prevents him from ever speaking again?

As far as a potential trial goes.

Usually, defense lawyers don't want their clients to testify, so there might not be any need for him to say anything in the first place (he does have to enter a plea, but his lawyer can do that for him).  If he does need to communicate but can't speak, I suppose he can either write or learn sign language.