WP: Moussaoui Jurors Ask Judge to Define 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'

[DeepModem Mom]

Moussaoui Jurors Ask Judge to Define 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 30, 2006

Jurors asked the judge in the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui today to define the term "weapons of mass destruction" and were told it includes airplanes used as missiles.

The federal jury's request for clarification from U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema came as it began its first full day of deliberations aimed at determining whether the avowed al-Qaeda member is subject to capital punishment for his admitted role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist plot.

After Brinkema explained that airplanes could be considered weapons of mass destruction when used as missiles -- as were the airliners that were hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in the Sept. 11 attacks -- the jurors resumed their deliberations.

The point is potentially crucial because conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction is one of three federal counts against Moussaoui that carry the death penalty. Moussaoui pleaded guilty to those counts and three others in April 2005.

The jury of nine men and three women began deliberating late yesterday after 10 days of testimony culminating in closing arguments by the prosecution and defense. The jurors are charged with deciding whether Moussaoui, 37, a French citizen of Moroccan origin, is eligible for the death penalty for his role in the al-Qaeda plot to carry out the Sept. 11 attacks. If they conclude that execution applies, they will reconvene for a second phase of the penalty trial to determine whether to actually impose capital punishment or give Moussaoui a life prison sentence with no parole. The second phase would provide an opportunity for people injured on Sept. 11 and the families of those who died to testify about the impact of the attacks....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033000970.html

[oneighty]

1. So a WMD

can be whatever a Judge decides he/she desires it to be. This both sets the term 'WMD' more inclusive but weaker at the same time.

No doubt whose side this Judge is on.

WMD is a scare term and nothing more.

180

[Roland99]

3. Will this be like porn? I'll know it when I see it?

[oneighty]

5. Well in a nuke

'MASS' is 'sort of destroyed' as it progresses into other things and becoming more or less than what it started as.

Hahaha Mass destruction.

180

[rodeodance]

2. how do define a vapor, an illusion something not there?

[Jacobin]

4. Egads. Now I'm really freaking, because Cuba and the Bahamas

have WMDs and they are like, right next to us!!

This judge sounds like a troll

[Lance_Boyle]

6. How many in the * administration could be charged

with "conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction?" Aren't these "mini-nukes" that they're so intent on developing and employing "weapons of mass destruction?" And they're pretty openly conspiring to develop and employ these...

[chelsea0011]

7. So cluster bombs are WMD's? I don't think they are classified as such.

Neither is napalm, I believe. So the judge is making it up as he goes along? What I don't understand is why they want him dead. Isn't he more valuable alive?

[dipsydoodle]

8. Presumably this would also include

AGENT ORANGE.

[truthisfreedom]

9. so, in other words, they've PROVED that the WTC fell because of the planes

and NO explosives were involved?

[Supersedeas]

10. why do I always get the impression that they make this shit up as they go

Didn't prosecutors have the burden of addressing this element prior to resting?

Why is the judge answering this question FOR THE JURY!!!

[Karmakaze]

14. because it is a legal definition...

Much like you can be "legally sane", but "clinically insane". The definition of "insane" in a legal sense is not necessarily the same as in a medical sense.

In this case the American legal definition of WMD includes any bomb, because it is not a targetted weapon. In other words it kills indescriminately over a certain area, and thus causes "mass destruction". In fact the US legal term is more accurate than the international legal term "WMD" because in that case it refers to an NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapon, regardless of whether it actually destroys anything.

Technically, Tear Gas is a WMD and is banned in war by international law because it is a chemical weapon, even though it doesnt kill. Any weapon that kills or incapacitates either permenantly or temporarily via the actions of a chemical agent is considered a chemical weapon, and is banned.

So police often use banned chemical weapons on protestors and criminals - Tear Gas, Pepper Spray etc..

[54anickel]

11. Damned good question...the judges answer surely sucks though. n/t

[WinkyDink]

12. THERE ya go! Saddam had PLANES!!

I found the WMD's, I found the WMD's, lalalalalala!

[Karmakaze]

13. This is the beauty of law!

A terms means what it is defined as in law. So under American law, a "Weapon Of Mass Destruction" is actually defined as a weapon that can kill indescriminately. So a standard pipe bomb is also a WMD under American law.

Under International law on the other hand, a WMD is defined as an NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapon. So although the terms appear the same, in fact they are different. One refers to a specific class of weapons, whereas the other refers to the potential effect of a weapon.

Some "WMD" as defined by international law, do not destroy ANYTHING, not even humans. But because they are NBC weapons they are classed as WMD. Alternatively a huge conventional bomb is NOT called a WMD, even though it could flatten a city, because it does not contain Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapons materials!

Fun eh?

[IndianaGreen]

16. Under that definition, the US has used WMDs in Iraq

and the military should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

[Karmakaze]

18. No, cause US law has no jurisdicition in Iraq!

For the case of weapons used in Iraq, you have to refer to International law, which as I said defines WMD as NBC weapons whether they are destructive or not. So every time they use Tear Gas in Iraq, they are using a banned chemical weapon and a WMD, but NOT when they drop a bomb.

Funnily enough, under international law, chemical weapons such as tear gas are banned in war, BUT NOT when used by police for civil matters. So the American government couldn't tear gas Iraqi soldiers during the war, but it COULD tear gas American anti-war protestors!

You gotta love the law!

[IndianaGreen]

15. A jetliner is not a weapon of mass destruction

What a bunch of idiots!

[Rex]

17. So the judge said a WMD is anything that can be used to fry this guy.

Pretty clear to me.

[Karmakaze]

19. No, Congress did, when they defined WMD.

It is not the Judges fault, he doesn't write the law.

Editted to add the legal definition:

(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002332---a000-.html

(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;

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html

So in full:

A weapon of mass destruction is defined as any destructive device such as an explosive, incendiary, or chemical bomb, rocket or missile, or any device SIMILAR to any of the devices listed.

So an aircraft aimed at a target is similar to an explosive missile, thus is a WMD for the purposes of the law.

[Rex]

21. No, but he does interpret the law

WMD as defined as "destructive devices" cannot include commercial airliners.

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;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

Commercial airliners were never meant to be devices of destruction, modified or unmodified. Their sole intent is to transport passengers to and fro. Modifying them does not change their nature.

[Thorandmjolnir]

23. Absolutely right

The Judge is stretching the law beyond its limits.

I had to look it up to, and the law clearly says, that:

The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.


There is no way you can make an airplane fit into this description.

A commercial airplane is not designed for use as a weapon. If thats the case, any machine with a combustion engine is a weapon of mass destruction.

Totally absurd. And laughable.

[KittyWampus]

26. Thanks for going to the Legal heart of the matter.

[Karmakaze]

29. What legal heart of the matter?

the poster ignored the actual legal definition because it doesnt suit his argument.

He is arguing that an airliner does not fit the definition becaue of this:

"The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon"

Merriam-Webster defines "redesign" as "to revise in appearance, function, or content"

The function of an airliner is NOT to fly into buildings, by using them that way, the terrorists redesigned the function of the aircraft to use it as a weapon. Thus the exclusion doesn't count, and the rest of the definition holds. That means for the legal definition, an airliner used as a flying bomb is a WMD, just as an M80 would be considered a WMD under this definition if it was used as a weapon.

I bet you can't find a judge in the world that would rule differently.

[Karmakaze]

28. Wrong

"There is no way you can make an airplane fit into this description."

Bull - the exemption says "neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon". Airliners arent designed to be flown into buildings. By flying it into a building intentionally with the purpose of damaging or destroying it, you can argue it HAS been redesigned for use as a weapon.

"A commercial airplane is not designed for use as a weapon. If thats the case, any machine with a combustion engine is a weapon of mass destruction."

Exactly. Like I said, don't blame the judge, blame the lawmakers. They are the ones who defined WMD as broadly as they have. You do realise that under that definition a large firecracker like an M80 is a WMD, don't you? You can see that can't you? So yes, a car used specifically to destroy a target could be classed as a WMD under this definition.

It IS absurd, but I dare say it is anything but laughable.

[Karmakaze]

27. Well, both the judge and I disagree with your interpretation...

Commercial airliners were not intended to be devices of destruction, but by flying it at a target, the hijackers did intend for it to be a weapon. It is NOT a cut and dried definition, but it is clear from the wording of the law that an airliner filled with fuel and intentionally crashed into a target does take on the properties of a flying bomb or missile, and thus can be included in the definition of WMD.

The only argument against an airliner used in this fashion being termed a WMD under this definition is whether "redesigned" means physically changed ONLY, or whether it can also mean that the way it is used is changed so that it becomes a weapon.

"The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon;"

That is the line you are relying on to make your argument, and I would argue that the act of intentionally flying an aircraft into a target means it has been "redesigned for use as a weapon", thus making that exemption void.

[Rex]

32. The law states that even if the commercial planes are redesigned

they are still not WMDs because of their original function. At least that is the way I see it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[derby378]

20. At least he didn't ask Gov. Blagojevich of Illinois

Taking a cue from the Million Mom March, he recently defined a semi-automatic AK-47 variant as being a WMD.

Hey, I'm just sayin'...

[Englander]

22. That's an abuse of language, law & logic, shurely?

'>snip

In 1998, US law formalised WMD as devices able "to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people" using chemicals, a disease organism, radiation or radioactivity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2744411.stm

[Karmakaze]

30. Actually they went further than that...

They also classed any "Destructive Device" as a WMD, and defined a "Destructive Device" as any explosive, incendiary or chemical bomb, grenade, rocket or missile, or any device similar to these. It had an exemption for devices not designed or redesigned for use as a weapon, but what the judge is relying on is that intentionally flying that aircraft into a target is a redesign of its function, and thus the exemption doesn't apply.

An aircraft used as a missile is treated the same way as a proper missile and considered a destructive device, which means it is also considered a WMD. That's the way congress defined it, and the judge has simply applied that definition.

No twisting of logic or language required.

[Hosnon]

24. Includes planes used as missiles?! You gotta be kidding me. nt

[Karmakaze]

31. It also includes firecrackers used as weapons...

Thats the way congress defined it, and the judge has merely applied the definition in the law.

[The Stranger]

25. Holy result-oriented definitions!

The definitions the Administration (and apparently others) use for war, terrorism, torture, weapons of mass destruction change by the millisecond.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

33. ---------->back to SALEM--->the Crucible--->some things never change

guess he pleaded guilty-