Use of WMD

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:57 pm

While reading about A. Martinez who is [charged with the premeditated murder of company commander Captain Phillip Esposito and Lieutenant Louis Allen in a blast in Iraq in June] (linky), I stumbled across this paragraph (6th from the bottom of linked article):

Reinert also recommended Martinez be charged on four additional counts including the use of a weapon of mass destruction against a U.S. citizen abroad and larceny.

(Claymore link added by me)

So it's ok to use a WMD against a non-US-citizen in war times ? Seems a bit hypocritic to me or am I totally misunderstanding this ?

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:21 am

Evidently, there is a law against using wmd's abroad against a US citizen. This alone does not necessarily imply that it's open season on non-US citizens since there could be other laws relating to them.

Also, the term wmd seems to be broadly construed since it includes small bombs.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:27 am

Well at least if we redefine WMD to include things like mines and gernades, we can say with certainty that Saddam had WMD's after all!

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:06 am

shrewd observation, Genghis

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:11 am

Heh, I see I've made a new friend here on the DBB.

Behemoth · Post by **Behemoth** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:25 am

You're right genghis

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:40 pm

Ah, that's right. I also called you out in that other thread. Now I just need ccb to chime in!

Anyway, I'm sorry I yelled at you guys in the other thread. I posted angry. Please don't take it too personally.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:14 pm

Can we not say athiests are weapons of "Mass" destruction?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:28 pm

woodchip wrote:Can we not say athiests are weapons of "Mass" destruction?

I'd say that distinction belongs more to Protestants...

-----

anyway, regarding the original post... yeah, not surprisingly, there's a US law against US citizens blowing up other US citizens. I assume other countries have their own laws about what can or can't be done by their citizens to their citizens, but I doubt those laws fall under the jurisdiction of US legislatures or courts.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:31 pm

woodchip wrote:Can we not say athiests are weapons of "Mass" destruction?

or perhaps cyclotrons?

Cuda68-2 · Post by **Cuda68-2** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:03 pm

Lothar wrote: I'd say that distinction belongs more to Protestants...

Lothar - I think you should censor yourself on this.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:10 pm

Cuda68-2 wrote:
Lothar wrote: I'd say that distinction belongs more to Protestants...
Lothar - I think you should censor yourself on this.

Why is that? Hell, I'm Catholic, and I chuckled at it.

Unless you're implying that Protestants might be offended by it, and unless I'm really missing something, I can't see on what grounds that would happen. And a hearty "heh" to De Rigueur's suggestion, as well.

Back on-topic, I think this is just a case of a law targeting a specific area without covering the more general case. Of course killing anybody with a WMD anywhere is a criminal action, but this law just focuses on US citizens abroad; I'd suspect that there's some type of sentencing technicality that's involved somewhere.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:40 pm

If Lothar is censored I demand woodchip get censored as well.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:59 am

I'm too cute to be censored.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:23 am

yah, thats true.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:53 am

Uhm, guys.. What I was thinking was -- it looks like the US will start a war over a 2nd world country (supposedly) owning/manufacturing WMDs. W/in the war the US will use WMDs against the opponent. Correct ?

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:09 pm

The term WMD is being used equivocally.

Use of WMD's (in the sense of dirty bombs, etc) is considered immoral. But in this context, the term is being applied to a mine. Does the mere application of the term WMD mean the use of mines inherits the all the properties of the use of dirty bombs? You can say yes if you want to and then call the US a hypocrit, but it cuts both ways. As Genghis points out, if mines are considered WMD's, then the invasion of Iraq was justified. (For that matter, any invasion could be justified.)

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:15 pm

Grendel wrote:Uhm, guys.. What I was thinking was -- it looks like the US will start a war over a 2nd world country (supposedly) owning/manufacturing WMDs. W/in the war the US will use WMDs against the opponent. Correct ?

That's like complaining that "drugs" (heroin, meth) are illegal yet people use "drugs" (tylenol) all the time. Perhaps the line between good drugs and bad drugs is a bit fuzzy or drawn in the wrong place, but it's pretty easy to see that there's a difference between drugs like tylenol and drugs like meth. The term is overly general.

WMD is a similarly general term. Anything from grenades to sarin to nukes should qualify, but it's pretty easy to see that there's a big difference between them. (There's an even bigger difference when you've signed a treaty that says you will not own, seek, or attempt development of certain specific WMD's but you continue development programs, however fruitless the programs ended up being.)

EDIT: some schools have "zero-tolerance" policies regarding weapons. Unfortunately, some of the stupider schools treat a kid with a plastic butter knife in his lunch the same as they treat a kid with a handgun in his waistline, because both are "weapons". Same kind of stupidity...

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:30 pm

Well,..

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video.asp

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:00 pm

Grendel wrote:Well,..

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video.asp

Nice propaganda. Gee, look, I can find a website that contradicts yours. Woo, I rule!

But honestly... what's your point? Be specific; don't just link me to someone else's argument.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:35 pm

That report seems to further support my observation of the previous posting. Even w/ the guy discredited there's still the admitted use of Mk-77.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:15 pm

Again, I ask, what's your point?

I refer you to the two posts about equivocating on the words "WMD".

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:13 pm

i don't want this issue of MK-77, Napalm, and White Phospherous being burried deep in a thread. We could be discussing this in detail in a seperate* thread.

(*now unlocked yay)

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:10 am

Lothar wrote:Again, I ask, what's your point?

I refer you to the two posts about equivocating on the words "WMD".

Dude -- what you wrote implies to me that "WMD" is too general and there are obvious differences (so mines are "ok" ?). I provide you w/ a link expanding the use of nasties into what you should consider the "bad end" of WMDs. Maybe you could give an opinion on topic this time and cut the smoke screen please ?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:15 am

Grendel wrote:(so mines are "ok" ?)

In what context? I don't think individuals should be out there laying them in other people's yards, but I don't blame any conventional military for having them in stock, and I wouldn't advocate invading some country just because their military has "WMD" in the form of mines. I hope they're not used any more except in extremely special circumstances, because I know they're still causing problems in countries that have been at peace for 30 years, but I'm not going to complain that our military (or Germany's or Russia's etc) shouldn't be allowed to have them.

And if some terrorist ("another man's freedom fighter", if you prefer) uses one, I don't mind seeing him jailed for longer on a technicality of language. Kinda like, if a known scumbag gets caught with a little too much weed, I don't mind seeing him get a long sentence for having "drugs" even though weed is in a different class from crack, meth, etc.

I provide you w/ a link expanding the use of nasties into what you should consider the "bad end" of WMDs.

I was totally unconvinced by the "documentary" that White Phosphorous had actually been used. If it really was, I'll certainly be pissed, but I have strong reasons to doubt it. Perhaps I'll say more in roid's thread, since he specifically brought up the WP issue.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:36 am

Lothar wrote:I was totally unconvinced by the "documentary" that White Phosphorous had actually been used. If it really was, I'll certainly be pissed, but I have strong reasons to doubt it. Perhaps I'll say more in roid's thread, since he specifically brought up the WP issue.

Again, even w/ WP out of the picture there's still the Mk-77 and the burn victims (or do you think it's faked ?). I doubt that RAI24 is too bad a news source since they have enough funds to do serious research. We are not talking about a backwater broadcasting station here. My GF knows a guy who participated in the Fallujah attack -- I'll try to ask him if he heard the WP warning.

Mk-77 is basically Napalm that is made w/ kerosene instead of benzene -- burns at even higher temps plus technically it's not Napalm (which is globally banned, even by the US..)

Anyway, I think I got what I was looking for, thx.