Boston Bombings: Read The Charging Documents

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

Source: TPM

PEMA LEVY 2:00 PM EDT, MONDAY APRIL 22, 2013

Read the criminal complaint against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and the affidavit of FBI Special Agent Daniel R. Genck.



Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/boston-bombings-read-charging-documents?ref=fpb

[Gore1FL]

1. It's a strange document

in point 3 it accuses him of using a WMD.

I'm pretty sure the pressure cook bomb was neither biological or nuclear.

[maddezmom]

2. Here is the relevant law

(a) Offense Against a National of the United States or Within the United States.— A person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction—
(1) against a national of the United States while such national is outside of the United States;
(2) against any person or property within the United States, and
(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;
(B) such property is used in interstate or foreign commerce or in an activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce;
(C) any perpetrator travels in or causes another to travel in interstate or foreign commerce in furtherance of the offense; or
(D) the offense, or the results of the offense, affect interstate or foreign commerce, or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce;

More:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a

[cqo_000]

3. The WMD charge does not fit the crime

The FBI is very clear about what constitutes a WMD:

In July 2006, the FBI created the Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, or WMDD, to build a cohesive and coordinated approach to incidents involving nuclear, radiological, biological, or chemical weapons...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd

There are no reports that a nuclear, radiological, biological, or chemical weapon was used in Boston so the charge is not correct.

[maddezmom]

7. Sorry, had the wrong link...see Melinda's down threas

The 19-year-old suspected terrorist cannot speak because of a gunshot wound to the neck, but CBS News reports he is awake and answering questions in writing.

The Justice Department says Tsarnaev would not be read his Miranda rights before questioning. The short Miranda rights warning informs arrested individuals that they have the right to remain silent and the right to legal representation. The government said investigators would invoke a "public safety exception." The suspect still retains these rights and cannot be tortured into confessing, but the exception is evidently being invoked to hasten the possible discovery of unexploded devices in the city.

The weapon of mass destruction charge facing Tsarnaev - a naturalized U.S. citizen of Chechen origin - is specified in 18 U.S.C. 2332a. John Mueller, an expert in foreign and defense policy at Ohio State University, explained to U.S. News in March that the very broad definition in this section of U.S. law covers many conventional weapons, and not just chemical, biological and nuclear.

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/04/22/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-charged-with-using-weapon-of-mass-destruction-in-boston-bombing

[Melinda]

10. Thank you for this link! Hopefully it will help explain things better than we can. ;-) eom.

[Melinda]

9. You are incorrect; See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a

At this link http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a we see: 2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—

(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title...

Go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 to see Section 921 which states, in part:

4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb...

Remember, the defendant is charged under US Criminal law, and not US Military law - there is a difference.

[Melinda]

5. WMD defined in 18 USC §2332a:

What are Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:

“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);
(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)(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.”

WMD is often referred to by the collection of modalities that make up the set of weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE). These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure.
-----------------------------

The explosive devices used in the Boston Bombings are legally defined and codified as Weapons of Mass Destruction in US law.

[former9thward]

6. If the Boston bombers had WMDs then so did Saddam Hussein.

He certainly had weapons with far greater power than those used in Boston.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. The difference is this is US criminal law only.

One has to be in the US for this to apply.

[Melinda]

13. It's not quite that simple...

Seems like it should be though. The defendant in the instant case is an American citizen, and will be tried under US Criminal law which defines WMD as including an explosive device used on US soil (other criteria found at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a.

Hussein was not American, and therefore the USC did not apply. IIRC, Bush*Co invaded because the UN had already issued a resolution which they claimed gave the US and her allies legal quarter.

Different legalese completely.

[NYC Liberal]

21. Bush et al claimed specifically that he had nuclear and chemical WMDs,

which was a lie. Had the claim been predicated on his WMDs being powerful convention weapons, that would have been a different story.

[former9thward]

22. He certainly had chemical WMDs.

That was never disputed. He used them to kill 50,000 Kurds before the Gulf War.

The Kurds, estimated to make up a fifth of Iraq, tried to fight back with their militias, but were crushed with aerial assaults and chemical attacks involving mustard gas and nerve agents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/world/05iht-saddam.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[NYC Liberal]

23. He had them years earlier, not in 2002-2003. They were destroyed after the Gulf War.

[former9thward]

24. Our troops went into Iraq in 2003 all suited up. Everyone thought he had them.

And would use them. A high school student can make mustard gas in the school lab. Very quickly and it takes no talent. A person that kills 50,000 five years earlier is capable of anything.

[NYC Liberal]

28. No, not "everyone" thought they had them.

You are completely wrong.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

4. It always gets me how they claim it affected commerce...

As if that's the end-all/be-all of existence. Then there is talk of the destruction of property both public and private,...including damage done to the sidewalk but in particular INTERSTATE commerce to justify FEDERAL involvement.

It's like they are heading off the entire "States Rights" crowd.

[former9thward]

8. No, they are heading off the "Constitution" crowd.

There had to be interstate commerce for there to be federal action. I suspect the U.S. Attorney knows Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. This is what happens when we consider murder to be a local law....

Just so some states can decide the death penalty.

[Woody Box]

14. Thanks a lot! - False flag attack proven

Just wait...

[geek tragedy]

15. This isn't the 911 Dungeon-your false flag crapola is a TOS violation, nt

[scarletwoman]

19. The woody box is back! The gift for all occasions!

[Woody Box]

25. Just wait...

just wait a little bit...

[maddezmom]

29. Wait for what? You to push more conspiracy crap.

Take it it to the creative speculation group.

[uppityperson]

26. Yes, it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=137491

[Lone_Star_Dem]

27. Good.

That crap wasn't funny.

[jakeXT]

16. The affidavit does not include any charges related to the killing of Massachusetts Institute of Tech

The affidavit does not include any charges related to the killing of Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer Sean Collier.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295311-tsarnaev-charged-with-conspiring-to-use-weapon-of-mass-destruction

[Tx4obama]

17. More charges will come later - they said on the news that the indict documents will probably be ...

... over 100 pages.

[FailureToCommunicate]

18. These are the Federal charges. State charges will be forthcoming.

[scarletwoman]

20. Thanks for posting this. (nt)