WMD? YMMV.
In the news over the past couple of days, I have heard the concealed explosives of the Undiebomber described as “weapons of mass destruction.”
To me, this didn’t sound quite right — in fact, it sounded like a naming convention the Bush administration might have used.
To check whether this was just me, I first stopped in at Wikipedia, where I found:
A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technnical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CRBN).
Now, knocking down an airplane with an explosive is a major act of destruction, but does it qualify as deployment of a WMD? I wouldn’t think so.
Taking down four planes, two enormous buildings and part of a third building is a huge act of destruction, but there aren’t any WMDs involved there either, unless you count the two towers themselves, the dust from which has yielded distinctly WMD-like effects.
So who then made the decision to call the PETN, as destructive as it undoubtedly is, a WMD, and up the terrorism ante from failed airplane bomber to a wielder of thunderbolts?
I found a December 25th CNN article comparing Richard Reid (another plane bomb failure, eight years ago) to Abdulmutallab, and using the term WMD. Checking further using Google News, I found this graph:
It looks like my intuition is right and the WMD usage was indeed a Bush hangover, though the term itself originated years previous to the run-up to the Iraq war.
Perhaps the media should be more careful, since WMDs are generally held to be biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, not common items like PETN, used in small caliber ammunition, land mines and shells, and as the explosive core of detonation cord.
A better phrase might be “weapon.” Or, for extreme cases, “big weapon.”
Good call Noni. We naturally tend to trivialize big ideas like WMD and make them meaningless except as triggers to big emotions, and become useless in conversation. There is also a well financed effort at doing just that on a number of words and ideas, which I call propaganda.
I wish we would go back to the old term: NBC. It was very straightforward. Nuclear, Biological and Chemical. Yes I know NBC would hate it but we should tell them TOUGH!
I assumed this was one of the nee terror laws passed under Bush that have made most anything a WMD for criminal purposes.
I think Rob is right. It’s a legal issue.
If convicted of trying to use a weapon of mass destruction, the young Nigerian faces life imprisonment, the Department of Justice said in a statement. Other charges carry a maximum of 20 years, while two charges of possession of a firearm carry a mandatory 30 years in prison.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100106/pl_afp/attacksusnigeria
Noni Mausa – “To me, this didn’t sound quite right — in fact, it sounded like a naming convention the Bush administration might have used.” …”It looks like my intuition is right and the WMD usage was indeed a Bush hangover, though the term itself originated years previous to the run-up to the Iraq war.”
It would be very hard to hang this around President Bush’s neck when, in fact, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103–322) is being cited in court cases whereby some conventional explosives are being treated as WMD. Essentially, the U.S. Congress legally established that some conventional armaments and weapons could be classified as WMD, and subsequent court cases have invoked that legislation. Some state laws now exist which are built around P.L. 103-322. Note, of course, this legislation was signed by President Clinton, not President Bush.
Begin reading on page 9 (pdf page 21 or 109 depending on how you read your pdf screen):
Defining “Weapons of Mass Destruction”
by Dr. W. Seth Carus
Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction
January 2006
http://www.ndu.edu/WMDCenter/docUploaded//OP4Carus.pdf
This is one of the finest papers written on the subject of what is the definition of WMD. A number of domestic and international legal issues are raised.
By the way, the Obama Administration is still aligned with previous administrations regarding more severe WMD threats and issues.
On November 6, 2009, President Obama released a CONTINUATION OF EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. This document states:
“On November 14, 1994, by Executive Order 12938, the President declared a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) and the means of delivering such weapons. On July 28, 1998, the President issued Executive Order 13094 amending Executive Order 12938 to respond more effectively to the worldwide threat of weapons of mass destruction proliferation activities. On June 28, 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13382 that, inter alia, further amended Executive Order 12938 to improve our ability to combat proliferation. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States; therefore, the national emergency first declared on November 14, 1994, and extended in each subsequent year, must continue. In accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12938, as amended. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.”
Other documents from the Clinton Administration are available which attest to the serious concerns regarding WMD. Such include President Clinton’s lengthy Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction on November 17, 2000, and SecDEF Cohen’s publication of “PROLIFERATION: THREAT AND RESPONSE” released January 2001. The WMD concerns are real and the U.S. Government continues to treat them with grave seriousness.
Good catch MG! Noni’s articles is an example of how politicized we make most things. It is a legal issue, and Bush was not involved with the decision.
Oh my taking down an airliner with, say, 200-300 people on it is very very very major, at least to whiny Americans. Just as 9/11 was something akin to the Holocaust or the Great Leap Forward or Pol Pot or the fire bombing of German cities by the Allies that incinerated hundreds of thousands of pwople. Not to mention the nukes on Japan.. When Americans dish it out it’s all well deserved, but when the least little pin prick hits the sacred USA it’s a world shaking calamity of historic proportions. I was recently reflecting on this whiny characteristic, rather like the Princess and the Pea syndrome. Of course our stupid war on Islam will keep the airways in random but incessant turmoil from now on. I hope we like what we are doing to ourselves. I guess we deserve it. No way to stop it as far as I see as long as Americans keep being so dumb.
A nuke on New York would, I suspect, clue Americans in to what a real disaster is like. That would be a genuine WMD at work. It would, at least, clarify terminology for many, I would suspect. Impart a sense of proportion.
And your solution is????
Thank you, Movie Guy, for that useful link.
The writer appears to also believe the wider definition of WMD “as weapons that cause massive destruction or kill large numbers of people” is problematic. Cluster bombs, anyone?
Simply including high explosives along with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons as in the third definition below pulled from MG’s link, widens the field farther than might be wise. From the paper: “Virtually the entire arsenal of a modern military force is WMD under this definition. Given the international consensus that WMD are weapons that should be prohibited or controlled, widespread adoption of this definition would imply that international disarmament negotiations should ensure that most conventional military armaments should be prohibited or at least subjected to arms limitations.”
Fine with me. As long as I am still allowed to keep my sword and morningstar. ~sound of whetstone~
My friends sometimes find my thirst for solid definitions to be overly finicky. But really, without shared definitions meaningful dialogue becomes impossible and we end up (figuratively or actually) just shouting and throwing things at each other. We do enough of that already — anything that might reduce the noise level and flying tibiae would be appreciated.
Noni
=============
Defining “Weapons of Mass Destruction”
by W. Seth Carus
Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Occasional Paper 4
National Defense University Press
Washington, D.C.
February 2006
From page 19:
n WMD as a synonym for nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons
n WMD as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) weapons
n WMD as CBRN and high explosive (CBRNE) weapons
n WMD as weapons that cause massive destruction or kill large numbers of people, and do not necessarily include or exclude CBRN weapons
n WMD as weapons of mass destruction or effect, potentially including CBRNE weapons and other means of causing massive disruption, such as cyberattacks.
MG,
I agree that this was an interesting paper. It was, as CoRev said, a “good catch.” But I don’t entirely agree with your interpretation of what the author was actually saying. The point of the 1994 example was to show a cartoon version of thinking about WMD. The author’s point was that Congressman and local prosecutors are hardly authorities on the subject and effectively drained any meaningful content out of the term WMD. It reminded me of what many state and local governments have done to the term “sexual predator.” Most people have in mind the kind of scumbag that you would expect to see on one of those MSNBC undercover things. But I saw a thing on our local news recently where “sexual predator” laws were being applied to 18 you high school seniors who datee 17 high school juniors. And now communities are having to deal with the consequences. This is what happens when you let ambitious prosecutors effectively define crimes. There is a tendency among prosecutors to inflate every crime. So every garden variety murder becomes the crime of the century. There is a tendency in American case law to get things out of proportion. We see a similar trend with anti-terrorist laws. Prosecutors cannot resist the temptation to twist definitions and inflate charges, so now we see anti-terrorism charges being added to just about any and every kind of felony imaginable. Suddenly the guy robbing the local Kwikee-Mart with a gun and a Koran in his pocket is a terrorist in the same way that OBL is a terrorist. That was his larger point about the 1994 law and the way it is being applied by prosecutors.
The crux of the problem is that “WMD” is an acronym for 3 different words, and not all definitions apply to all 3 words. For example, one of the points the author makes is that chemical weapons can be highly specific and may not belong in the category of “mass” destruction. And is there any “destruction” in the wake of some WMD attacks. For example, neutron bombs are, by design, nondestructive. That’s why the author sites another definition that specifically includes radiological weapons. Most people have an intutitive sense of WMD and they always mean nuclear. They also usually mean biological, although if we’re not careful we might find overeager prosecutors charging people with sneezing on a subway as WMD terrorists. And we usually mean large volumes of chemical weapons directed at civilians. The case of chemical weapons directed at military forces is not usually what people have in mind when talking about WMD, but that’s arguable.
It is a sad day when the US congress usurps the executive branch’s role as Ministry of Truth.
“Essentially, the U.S. Congress legally established that some conventional armaments and weapons could be classified as WMD,”
That congress passes a piece of legislation does not make it real or true.
WMD are minitru tool words for perpetual fear, endless war and lulling the masses to suffer the abuses of corruption and war profiteers.
It may have occurred that the US congress and executive with support of the nine elderlies are all allied in the end of truth.
CoRev,
I think MM’s point was that if we want to consider PETN as WMD because it could have killed a couple hundred innocent people on an airliner, then we also have to ask ourselves what we should call drone aircraft strikes that kill dozens of innocent civilians at wedding parties. Do ten drone attacks each killing 30 people equal 1 PETN attack killing 300? Why would we call a bomb “WMD” in a failed attempt to kill 278 passengers, but we wouldn’t call a conventional bomb “WMD” in a successful attack killing of 202 people in Bali? Is it because the Bali bombing didn’t involve Americans? A lot of our thinking on this stuff tends to be American-centric. I believe that’s MM’s point.
You asked for a solution. One thing that would help would be to recognize that a “global war on terror” strategy that only looks at American deaths on American soil is not a strategy worthy of the name. If you want to talk about the effectiveness of a global strategy, then you need to look at global deaths and global incidents.
Immense neglect.
A string of islands.
Evacuate NY.
The city is indefensible.
Given the preference for profit over defenses.
I do not live near or go there.
MG,
I’m not sure that I’m understanding your point here. Noni’s point about the Bush Administration was that they seemed to expand the definition of WMD. The directive signed by Obama seems to restrict the definition of WMD to nuclear, chemical and biological (NBC). The issue isn’t whether or not both Administrations consider NBC to be WMD….that’s not controversial. The issue is whether or not Team Obama is continuing the Bush tradition of expanding the definition of WMD. I think the jury is still out on that one; however, I would agree that some early statements would suggest that Team Obama might continue down the Bush path.
Too bad we no longer have Hitler.
The tactical results of using chem weapons include casualties and degrading the taregt force due to inefficiencies and logistics burden of MOPP gear and so forth.
Otherwise, they are burdensome for the users and require MOPP gear and specialized logistics.
Thus, Hitler never used them, due to even lesser operational effect than the zero sum game at the tactical level.
But there is profit evolving ever more expensive ways to worry about useless tactics.
Noni’s point about the Bush Administration was that they seemed to expand the definition of WMD.
I don’t see it. Within the definition you have different levels with nuclear weapons considered the most serious. When we went into Iraq nobody expected that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. What is Obama going to do. Like with terrorism where he played with terms other than a war on terror will now call chemical weapons something less than WMD. I don’t see it coming. Obama’s on the job training is making him more like Bush on foreign policy. Given the failure of the stimulus maybe he’ll in addtion get the message on the economy and dump the leftward power grab and become a supply sider.
WMD is simply a way to manipulate what we do and turn it into exercises in language instead of reality. It resembles the word “terror” which is a red herring used to confuse people about what we are at war against. Beware those in power who cynically manipulate language. The Nazis were masters of that. We are too.
Cantab,
When we went into Iraq nobody expected that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons.
I agree that no one in the Administration actually believed that Saddam had nuclear weapons. If they had believed that, then Bush would not have invaded. And they didn’t really believe Saddam was even close to having nukes, because there is always some uncertainty around those kinds of things and even a 2 percent chance that Saddam might have had nukes would probably have been enough to deter Team Bush. So basically Team Bush and Dick Cheney lied and overinflated the nuclear thing. We all know that. But the reason they did that was because no one would have felt the urgency of going to war over the possibility of unaccounted for 20 year old stockpiles of mustard gas. That’s not something that people would go to war over. And even at that the US Army didn’t really believe the chemical weapons threat was all that serious. [Yes, it’s true that all troops were outfitted with chemical suits and chemical defense equipment. But you have to ask about the actual condition of those suits and CDE…hint, hint. Was it all just for show to make the concern about chemical weapons look stronger???]
I own a WMD. (At least according to USC.)
My .58 cal muzzle loading rifle is a WMD. The USC only exempts shotguns from the deffinition. Any firearm > (>=?) .50 cal is a WMD according to US law.
Threaten somebody with a latge mu\zzleloading rifle and you have committed an act of terrorism and face life in prison.
“…Noni’s point about the Bush Administration was that they seemed to expand the definition of WMD. …”
My mention of the Bush administration was sort of a offhand criticism, of a naming convention which always gets my attention, whether by the Bushies or not.
Roughly stated, it is “The more I the citizen am going to dislike something, the more lavishly good or horrifically bad will be the language chosen to name it.”
So, Weapons of Mass Destruction (aieee!) Homeland Security (smell of fresh baked bread with zither music in the background.) Or in Canada, Harmonized Taxes (sound of harp music.)
Noni
Please take CoRev’s advice not to simplify this into mere political rhetoric either.
Thanks MG.
I would second the idea that ‘you liberals’ should be dropped from comments here. We are too diverse a group, and it reflects badly on the one who makes such claims. Some of us are progressive, some liberal, some just old fashioned, some just very religious…
Guest,
I know WMD to mean NBC so i’m indifferent on which one we use.
Rdan,
That’s impossible given the column was driven by political motivation to affect rhetoric.
Let me follow up on my reference to P.L. 103-322, passed in 1994.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322) amended Chapter 113 of Title 18, United States Code. Title 18 deals with crimes and criminal procedure. Chapter 113b of Title 18 addresses issues related to terrorism. When originally passed, SEC. 60023, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, of PL 103-322 was inserted as part of Chapter 113a of Title 18; that chapter is now Chapter 113b.
The inserted section, Sec. 2332a, Chapter 113b, Title 18, addresses the use of weapons of mass destruction. The section explains the nature of the offense(s) and provides a legal definition for “weapons of mass destruction” which includes definitions outlined in Section 921 of Chapter 44, and Section 118 of Chapter 10, Title 18.
The provision and related links:
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322)
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=1019%7C6712%7C11537%7C11695%7C5185
UNITED STATES CODE
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18.html
TITLE 18 > PART I
PART I—CRIMES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B
CHAPTER 113B — TERRORISM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113B.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2332a
§ 2332a. Use of weapons of mass destruction
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002332—a000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 921
§ 921. Definitions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921—-000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 10 > § 178
§ 178. Definitions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000178—-000-.html
Let me follow up on my reference to P.L. 103-322, passed in 1994.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322) amended Chapter 113 of Title 18, United States Code. Title 18 deals with crimes and criminal procedure. Chapter 113b of Title 18 addresses issues related to terrorism. When originally passed, SEC. 60023, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, of PL 103-322 was inserted as part of Chapter 113a of Title 18; that chapter is now Chapter 113b.
The inserted section, Sec. 2332a, Chapter 113b, Title 18, addresses the use of weapons of mass destruction. The section explains the nature of the offense(s) and provides a legal definition for “weapons of mass destruction” which includes definitions outlined in Section 921 of Chapter 44, and Section 118 of Chapter 10, Title 18.
The provision and related links are available here:
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322)
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=1019%7C6712%7C11537%7C11695%7C5185
UNITED STATES CODE
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
TITLE 18 — CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18.html
TITLE 18 > PART I
PART I — CRIMES
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B
CHAPTER 113B — TERRORISM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113B.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2332a
§ 2332a. Use of weapons of mass destruction
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002332—a000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 921
§ 921. Definitions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921—-000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 10 > § 178
§ 178. Definitions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000178—-000-.html
Here is an ongoing federal court action involving a potential violation of Section 2332a, Title 18, U.S. Code.
For Immediate Release
January 6, 2010
Jane W. Duke, United States Attorney
Grand Jury Returns Indictment Charging Russellville Area Doctor With Bombing of State Medical Board Chairman
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2010/01/010610-no-grand-jury-indicts-russellville-bomber.html
EXCERPT:
“LITTLE ROCK, ARK. — Jane W. Duke, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and Phillip Durham, Special Agent in Charge of the New Orleans Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), announced today the return of a second superseding indictment against Dr. Randeep Mann, age 51, of London, Ark. In addition to earlier charges, Mann is now also charged with the Feb. 4, 2009, bombing of Dr. Trent Pierce, Chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board. Count one charges that Mann, aided and abetted by a person or persons unknown to the grand jury, used and conspired to use a “weapon of mass destruction” against a person and property within the United States, in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 2332a. Count two charges that Mann, aided and abetted by a person or persons unknown to the grand jury, maliciously damaged or destroyed a vehicle by means of an explosive, in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 844(I).”
well, Noni is right. As are 2slug and others.
The point here is the way language is hyped to the point of hysteria by politicians and prosecutors. it’s been going on for a long time. nothing new. but it deserves to be pointed out, not that it will do any good.
What is at issue here is a federal law that has been on the books for fifteen years. Complaining about politicians and federal prosecutors doesn’t change that fact. Now, if one is unfamiliar with the law, try reading it before throwing out more claims.
The reality is simple. Federal prosecutors use existing laws in presenting charges against those accused of various crimes. Some news reporters report criminal proceedings. Both the prosecutors and news reporters have Title 18 at their disposal. It would very difficult to overstate Section 2332a, Chapter 113b, Title 18, considering how broadly the law is written.
News reporters are not at fault when citing WMD in a federal prosecution that cites Section 2332a.
This law has been in effect for fifteen years. It’s cited under TITLE 18 — CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE > PART I — CRIMES > CHAPTER 113B — TERRORISM > § 2332a. Use of weapons of mass destruction. It’s not hard to find.
Tstockmann,
This main post was about the pending charges against the airplane bomber. He is likely to be cited, among other charges, with a 2332a offense, weapons of mass destruction. If a news reporter shares that info, he/she is correct.
The rest of the discussion revolves around over 40 different definitions for WMD, none of which have anything to do with the charges the bomber will face other than a 2332a cite and other charges under Title 18.
The news media got it right. Period.
What slugger said. Nobody expected Iraq to have a nuclear weapon, unless they took Bush administration officials’ public statements seriously. Their public justifications for invading Iraq were larded with “mushroom cloud”. A Bush administration official told a journalist that the only argument for invading that everybody in the room when the spin was being decided could agree on was weapons of mass destruction. The fact that public support for war rose as the Bush administration beat the drum suggests that the “nobody” you have in mind includes a lot of people.
As to the wider issue of the use of “weapons of mass destruction”, restricting our focus to legal definitions is, well, pretty restricting. Noni’s shows us web hits. The web is, by and large, not a legal journal, so we have reason to believe legal parlance was not her goal. Yes, there are legal definitions of the term, which have changed over time. There is also broader, sloppier, and also mutable use of the term in journalism and popular discussion. We should not confuse one with the other or allow ourselves to be misled into thinking we can only usefully discuss one use and not others.
It would also be naive to think that politicization of language is something that happens only outside the law. Law is written by politicians, and politicians are not above using politicized speech when writing legislation.
Speaking of politicizing speech…the same guy who is pretending to take the hight road on rhetoric is telling us that the stimulus failed – suggesting he learned everything he knows about economics from Glen Beck – and that the right alternative is supply-side economics. This is is not just propoganda. It’s insulting propoganda, as it suggests readers here are stupid enough to fall for undiluted GOP talking points.
One of the great slaughters of humans through the use of technology, perhaps the greatest on the battlefield, were deaths during the trench warfare of WWI, due to machine gun fire. Poison gas was used, and accounted for a tiny fraction of the deaths due to bullets. Our election campaigns pretty routine include talk if “taking away our guns” by people who think owning machine guns is an inalienable right.
Conventional aerial bombardment proved capable of killing tens of thousands at a time – just have to get the fire storm going. Aerial bombs are not included in the legal definition of WMD. Landmines kill innocents long after the dispute leading to their placement has been settled. The US has long opposed a ban. There is considerable hypocracy in outlawing weapons that would deny us an advantage, while promoting the overseas sale of billions in weapons every year, knowing that they are put to use often enough against innocents.
If we are going to discuss this stuff, we should not allow the discussion to be shoved onto a path that is convenient only to those doing the shoving.
And I’m saying that when the news media uses a legal term that has a siginificantly different meaning in common parlance they should spare a sentence to note that. Period.
Jeepers, I like this “period” thing. I think it means nobody is supposed to say anything else afterwards. Of course I just did despite that ferocious “period” and honi soit qui mal y pense.
Thank you TStockman, this is just the point I was getting at. * whew *
What triggered this whole discussion (and I have been very glad to have it) was my puzzlement that the CBC was describing Abdulmutallab’s attempt as a deployment of a WMD. I thought they knew better. But, if the actual charges under US law include the “W” word, then this makes it a little more comprehensible.
Noni