decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
According to current legal definition... | 210 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
According to current legal definition...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 23 2013 @ 05:15 AM EDT

See Pop ehat for the details. Suffice it to say "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is now defined in US law as including rather small quantities of explosive or incendiary. Drop a flaming sambuca shot and it could be argued to be a 'missile having an incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce' and thus a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Anyone know when this definition became law? It does seem a much lower bar the the NBC level people are familiar with.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

totally agree on "over the top"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 23 2013 @ 07:26 AM EDT
The first time I heard about the use of wmd in this context
I thought along the line of, to put it mildly; "Oh boy, here we go
again"

Unfortunately there are people that use
Words of Much Delusion and do not care to be out of
touch with reality.
As long as they get their way.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Yep, that sounds like Carmen Ortiz allright
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 23 2013 @ 10:24 AM EDT
Guys, this is chasing your own tail. The law
itself defines its meaning.

You know how frustrating it is when the courts
use a regular dictionary to define a tech
word? That's what you are doing here, using
the wrong dictionary, namely what you have in
your minds, with this law. It is a term of
art, used in connection here with the law
itself, which defines it.

Basically the law, written after 9/11, says
if you are using a bomb, let's say, with the
intent and the result that a lot of people
are hurt or killed, you qualify.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )