USG charges Syrian Rebel with use of WMD

[Beowulf]

Let’s All Stop Saying ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ ForeverBy Spencer Ackerman

Any term that conflates nuclear weapons with any other kind of weapon is bound to be a poor descriptor. But the U.S. government has reached peak absurdity by labeling a rocket-propelled grenade a weapon of mass destruction.

Technically, Eric Harroun, a U.S. Army veteran who joined the rebellion in Syria, has only been charged with using a “destructive device.” (More on him in a second.) But U.S. law isn’t particularly diligent about differentiating dangerous weapons from apocalyptic ones. The affidavit of FBI agent Paul Higginbotham undergirding Harroun’s recent arrest and charge sums it up like this: “There is probable cause to believe that, in or about January 2013 to March 2013, Eric Harroun conspired to use a weapon of mass destruction, i.e. a Rocket Propelled Grenade, outside of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2332a(b).”

Harroun will have his day in court to contest the facts surrounding his case. But federal law has established the absurdity that a rocket-propelled grenade is a weapon of mass destruction. If you follow the rabbit hole of the statute referenced in Higginbotham’s affidavit, any citizen who uses “a weapon of mass destruction outside of the United States shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.” The statutory definition of “weapon of mass destruction” refers to “any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title,” which in turn includes: a “rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces.”

Other weapons of mass destruction, legally speaking: Bombs. Grenades. Mines. Missiles “having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce.”

The law, as Charles Dickens wrote, is a ass. But to be fair to the lawyers, the problem resides within the term itself. “Weapons of mass destruction” are a bitter punchline, thanks to the war that the United States launched, ostensibly to secure ones that weren’t there. But the term endures, obscuring the fact that the holy trinity of weapons contained therein — nuclear, chemical and biological — are very different things.

It’s very easy to kill lots of people with a nuclear weapon. It’s harder, but possible, for a nuclear exchange to disrupt planetary climate patterns and kill vastly more once crops die and famines result. These are not things that chemical and biological weapons, as dangerous as they are, can do. Chemical weapons are subject to atmospheric dissipation and need people packed into a dense area to do maximum damage, as with Saddam Hussein’s chemical massacre at Halabja. Biological weapons are potentially more deadly, but their distribution patterns — particularly when passed through humans or animals — can limit their virulence. Rocket-propelled grenades, missiles, bombs, mines — just, no.

In fact, as a fascinating paper by W. Seth Carus at the National Defense University shows (.pdf), the Defense Department’s definition of the term has long been problematic. For years, its official definition included “high explosives,” to make it consistent with the federal statute that Harroun ran up against. But “most military weaponry relies on high explosive charges,” Carus writes, “meaning that even the mortars and grenades used by infantrymen might qualify as WMD.” The doctrinal answer was ultimately to limit the definition to “chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties.”

But clearly those weapons are not created equal. As many have pointed out through the years, there’s an inherent threat inflation that occurs when you say So-and-So possesses weapons of mass destruction to mean So-and-so possesses chemical weapons. Better, and more responsible, to simply describe an arsenal specifically.

Also, for anyone who’s thinking of joining a foreign insurgency, particularly one whose most capable fighters are designated by the United States as a terrorist organization, you should probably think twice about YouTubing and Facebooking your exploits. Social media documentation makes up the preponderance of evidence cited against Harroun. His photo captions are part of the case against him. The law not only conflates rocket-propelled grenades and nuclear weapons, it cares what you call your adventure-porn pictures.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem here is that "weapon of mass destruction" is relative; it means "weapon that causes unusual destruction."

In the hands of you personally, a rocket launcher is a weapon that causes unusual destruction. Compared to 'normal' attack modes like fists, spears, or guns, it is unusually destructive. From a legal point of view, in a trial, calling the result of an exploding bazooka rocket "mass destruction" is fair: it could easily kill several people, maybe even a dozen or more. Hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars of property damage are also on the table.

In the hands of a nation-state, a rocket launcher is pretty small potatoes. Rocket launchers are ridiculously dangerous compared to one man, but not compared to a whole country. Nuclear bombs, on the other hand, are that dangerous.

So it's sensible that "weapons of mass destruction" would mean something different in international law than in ordinary law.

[Grumman]

The problem here is that "weapon of mass destruction" is relative; it means "weapon that causes unusual destruction."

I disagree. The problem is that US law misappropriated an existing term in a way that is likely to have a prejudicial effect.

And I see no reason to define a grenade as unusually destructive with such a deceptive term when a heavy machine gun is not.

[Stark]

Even the term 'weapon of mass destruction' is dodgey, because while it has an agreed meaning, its a non-obvious meaning (biological weapons don't 'destroy' anything, for instance). NBC was a meaningful term that encapsulated a bunch of weapon technologies people wanted to restrict or stigmatise, but weapons of 'mass destruction' is arguably just a way to stigmatise every weapon that isn't an American 'precision' 'smart' bomb.

The legal definition discussed in the article is pretty hilarious. Clearly America found heaps of WMDs in Iraq after all.

[Beowulf]

A quarter ounce of explosive is less than the amount of powder in a .50BMG round.

[Sea Skimmer]

Bio weapons can destroy crops, live stock, water supplies and human lives, a couple random ones can also destroy fabric, rubber and a few other elements of war material though I don't think they exactly work well, its all perfectly in line with multiple dictionary definitions of destroy.

The US definition of WMD in this context concerning explosives ect is directly taken from how the US defines destructive devices under the 1934 National Firearms Act. Sure we could go amend this law to say to destructive devices instead, but what the hell would that actually change? As the article states, the punishment provided under the law is already completely scalable.

The articles discussion of the military view of this question is also a bit incorrect as of current doctrine. The US military does currently group 'high yield explosives' alongside NBC weapons and the relevant field manuals have all been amended to include this in the last decade or so. This is based purely on potential to cause mass casualties and the required planning and assets to deal with them, but for a military this is on a whole different level then civilians as noted already.

[Terralthra]

I'm not sure I agree with the author of the article's assertions about chemical weapons either. Some chemical weapons are lethal to a wide variety of life and persist in the environment. VX is probably the most famous example, with a lethal dose 1/10th that of sarin, a high viscosity, and a low volatility. Drop VX on an area, and it becomes a death zone, indefinitely, for anything that uses acetylcholinesterase in its muscular system (mammals, reptiles, avians - essentially all animals).

[Irbis]

The US definition of WMD in this context concerning explosives ect is directly taken from how the US defines destructive devices under the 1934 National Firearms Act. Sure we could go amend this law to say to destructive devices instead, but what the hell would that actually change? As the article states, the punishment provided under the law is already completely scalable.

What that would change? It wouldn't water down important term to the point it becomes meaningless. What's next, calling jaywalkers terrorists? Calling pot smokers drug lords?

Also, I like how people say US legal system protects freedom due to flawed double jeopardy concept, but don't bat an eye on state having easily abusable power to do 'any term of years or for life' verdict. In fact, I wonder why they even bothered to include 'for life' in that sentence, seeing they can easily dictate 666 year long imprisonment, or something.

And I see no reason to define a grenade as unusually destructive with such a deceptive term when a heavy machine gun is not.

But Grumman, HMGs are FRIDUM. You wouldn't want to have NRA campaign against you for slandering totally innocent arsenals of hard working right wing militias, would you?

[Gaidin]

Also, I like how people say US legal system protects freedom due to flawed double jeopardy concept, but don't bat an eye on state having easily abusable power to do 'any term of years or for life' verdict. In fact, I wonder why they even bothered to include 'for life' in that sentence, seeing they can easily dictate 666 year long imprisonment, or something.

I'd hate to break your paranoid schtick, but if a court actually sentences someone to life imprisonment or the functional equivalent in years for merely firing an RPG, they get to swing back on appeal with the 8th amendment I'm pretty sure.