david rivkin, start by explaining to us what this means. using a weapon of mass destruction.it a term of legal art? >> it is a term of art, gwen. good to be with you. it is obviously a manifestation of the seriousness of the attack. it is a charge that carries a death penalty, and i for one, given the wealth of physical evidence and evidence that the prosecution will be able to bring to bear, would be quite comfortable predicting that he would be convicted and sentenced appropriately. >> ifill: laura murphy, that term "weapon of mass destruction," is that relatively new kind of charge? >> yeah, that's in statute. congress created that term. it's a very broad term. and it's beenroadly interpreted. >> ifill: is part of the broad interpretation what the penalty would be? >> i don't understand your question. >> ifill: as david rivkin just said part of the reason why that kind of charge is brought is because it makes you liable for the death penalty. >> well, we don't know whether the federal prosecutors are going to charge this suspect with the death penalty. so it is a prosecuti