The FBI's WMD Charges

Once again, the FBI demonstrates its willful ignorance by charging the Michigan militia group Hutaree with "attempting to use WMDs" because it had pipe-bombs.

According to the indictment, the leader of Hutaree, David Brian Stone (known as RD), was plotting to kill an unspecified member of law enforcement, then attack law enforcement vehicles in the funeral procession motorcade with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). Militia members say that Stone also is the group's pastor. According to the indictment, his son, Joshua Matthew Stone, provided materials to manufacture such devices. David Stone had researched the devices on the Internet and emailed diagrams of them to someone he thought could build them, the indictment alleges.

It's stupid to equate conventional explosives to nuclear bombs, nerve agents, and anthrax, but hey, the law's on the books, the FBI's done it before, and will continue to do so until forced to do otherwise. The WMD charge isn't going to add more than a few years onto their sentences, if that. I understand the use of the term "CBRNE" for antiterrorism and consequence management, but it's not a WMD.

In other news, the local Fox network in Michigan talks to the "mainstream" Michigan militia leaders, who assure us that their military-garbed, all-white "gun enthusiast" groups are in no way associated with those Christian militia nuts in the Hutaree group. But I look forward to Karl Rove's and Marc Thiessen's calls to move these nine members to military confinement and to begin "enhanced interrogation" methods to make sure there aren't more of these guys out there.

Comments

[USAFREOD]

Don't knock the FBI for this. They have little say. This is an WH/NSC/AG policy issue. The definitions are codefied in the CFR. It will take a much higher level of authority to change this policy. FBI is just being efficient in application of the legal tools they are provided.

You may not like UCAVs, but would you blame the operational commander for using them?

[J.]

But I love UCAVs ;)

My point has been - continues to be - that the DoJ/domestic use of the term "WMD" applied to small amounts of high-yield explosives just makes it harder for all of us (and especially the WH/NSC) to create sensible policies and directives in the DOD/State Dept side. They only make it harder for themselves.

All I see is FBI spokespersons talking about WMD charges, so I blame them. Perhaps its unfair, but as a Navy colleague once told me, a visible target is a target.

[Andy]

J,

The problem is that US Code puts relatively small amounts of explosives under the legal definition of WMD. You need to get Congress to properly define WMD. The FBI can't help it that the criminal law is defined the way it is.

[NVH]

J, USAFREOD, it's just like you previous arguments on other recent posts about Defense Acquisition in CBDP being the PM's fault. Everyone in CBDP knows that the JPEO CBD is the guy who makes all the hard decisions and the JPMs and their PMs that bring them the issue to decide on. It's not the PMs call. And even when PMs are empowered to canc contractors or issue letters of reprimand etc...they don't b/c the paperwork is useless, half the COs don't know the process or have one in place and are too scared of the implications. So what does a PM do? Drive on...and try to stop wasting so much time bitching...

[J.]

Andy - my observations on such issues is that, very often, executive agency staffers recommend language for congressional staffers to add to legislation. That's been the case for initiating the DOD chem demil/chem-bio defense programs. I suggest that Congress will not "define" WMDs until someone in DOJ gives them the words.

NVH - besides the point that you think it's a Bad Thing to criticize bad govt policy and poor acquisition practices, exactly what does your comment have to do with domestic terrorists?

[sly]

If I'm remembering correctly, the criminal definition of WMD was created after the first World Trade Center bombing, because there wasn't a specific charge that fit using explosives to blow up a building. In that context it certainly fits - it's a weapon that causes massive casualties in one go, as opposed to on an individual level. The problem now is that it's gotten mixed in with the political rhetoric of WMDs in the NBC sense rather than the older legal sense. I think it would be a good idea to change the terms used in the legal code (I think the British have a similar law but it's focused on this kind of explosive) but for now it's what we're stuck with.

[sglover]

"NVH - besides the point that you think it's a Bad Thing to criticize bad govt policy and poor acquisition practices, exactly what does your comment have to do with domestic terrorists?"

Or put another way -- with all the jargon cluttering his post, just what the hell is NVH trying to say at all?!?!