Abdulmutallab Indicted in Michigan

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23 year old Nigerian failed "underpants bomber," has been indicted in Michigan.

The six count Indictment, returned today, is here.

The charges include attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, attempted murder, attempt to destroy an aircraft, willfully placing a destructive device on an airplane, possession of a destructive device in furtherance of a crime of violence, and carryng/using a destructive device in furtherance of a crime of violence.

The first count carries a possible penalty of life in prison.

< Gov. Ritter Press Conference: Leaving for Family Reasons | Debunking The Excise Tax As Wage Raiser Myth >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Surprised... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 02:42:53 PM EST
    how low the legal threshold is for a wmd...I guess techincially half the country has wmd's in their garage or shed.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, (none / 0) (#2)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 03:16:46 PM EST
    But I think it has something to do with intent...

    Also, he is the "alleged" underpants bomber since he hasn't been found guilty. Yet.


    Seems reasonable to me: (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 03:22:38 PM EST
    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.

    Gasoline and a match... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 03:25:44 PM EST
    can qualify...interesting, thanks sarc.

    a whole lot (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 03:59:51 PM EST
    of gasoline.

    It's not really that low (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 04:42:17 PM EST
    Here's the specific charge = he's charged under 2332a (a)(2).

    But "weapon of mass destruction" is defined as:

    (2) the term "weapon of mass destruction" means--
    (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
    (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); or
    (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;

    Thanks jb... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 05:26:59 PM EST
    thats more what I had in mind for a "wmd"...I'd hate to think gasoline and/or dynamite could technically be the bullsh*t reason we invaded and occupied Iraq:)

    That (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 05:32:23 PM EST
    was other bull$hit reasons.



    Don't be reassured ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 08:37:42 PM EST
    "any destructive device" as defined in section 921(a)(4) of title 18 does include gasoline or fertilizer, etc., if packaged to explode and designed for use as a weapon  

    My guess is (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 10:54:16 AM EST
    In cases like this - even bringing something as innocuous as gasoline on a plane (which is banned) should still be considered a WMD.

    Now that is ridiculous.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 11:03:01 AM EST
    you could stretch that thinking so far as to make a cigarette lighter and passing gas a wmd...I don't think we should make a mockery of the phrase "wmd"...the phrase (and charges for same) should be limited to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.  I'm sure with our bloated law books we can find plenty to charge the Scrotum-Bomber with without resorting to calling his diaper a wmd...its laughable.

    Gasoline (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 11:15:45 AM EST
    is chemcial. And it is illegal to take it on an airplane. (So are things like nunchuks if you want to know)

    And the underwear bomber had PETN, which is used as a military explosive, so it definitely is a WMD.


    If you say so jb... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 11:21:59 AM EST
    I guess you think an M80 on the 4th of July is a WMD then...who knew the delinquents down the block from me growing up set off WMD's every year?  

    Surpised they're not in the pen...sh*t one of 'em is a cop now...how did his use of WMD's slip by the NYPD background check?


    I think (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 11:54:40 AM EST
    if you bring an M80 on a plane, then yes, it's fair to consider it a WMD.

    But again (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 11:55:07 AM EST
    This guy had serious explosives on him - not something trivial like an M80.

    So depending on where the weapon... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 12:46:09 PM EST
    is used, or attempted to be used, determines if it is a WMD?

    Are the lunatics who shoot up schoolyards with an AK using a WMD?


    I'm not a judge (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    But yes, guns can be classified as WMDs.......

    Personally, I think people who do that should be prodded with an electric cattle prod on a daily basis in sensitive areas, but hey, what do I know?


    More fallout to come (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 10:56:44 AM EST
    When the report is released today:

    WASHINGTON -- White House national security adviser James Jones says Americans will feel "a certain shock" when they read an account being released today of the missed clues that could have prevented the alleged Christmas Day bomber from ever boarding the plane.

    President Barack Obama "is legitimately and correctly alarmed that things that were available, bits of information that were available, patterns of behavior that were available, were not acted on," Jones said in an interview Wednesday with USA TODAY.

    "That's two strikes," Obama's top White House aide on defense and foreign policy issues said, referring to the foiled bombing of the Detroit-bound airliner and the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, in November. In that case, too, officials failed to act when red flags were raised about an Army psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Hasan. He has been charged with killing 13 people.

    Jones said Obama "certainly doesn't want that third strike, and neither does anybody else."

    The White House plans to release an unclassified report today on what went wrong in the incident involving a 23-year-old Nigerian man who tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight.

    On Wednesday, the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was indicted on charges that include attempted murder and trying to use a weapon of mass destruction to kill nearly 300 people. Abdulmutallab, who faces life in prison if convicted, is to appear for the first time in federal court Friday.

    He has told investigators that he was trained and equipped in Yemen by a group affiliated with al-Qaida. His father had gone to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria to warn American officials that his son seemed to be turning to extremist ideology.