Vincent Bugliosi: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

[Decker]

From the famous prosecution attorney that brought you books showing that Oswald acted alone and that the five members of the US Sup. Ct. in Bush v. Gore knowingly acted as republican surrogates by installing George Bush as president in 2000 comes this gem:

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

by Vincent Bugliosi

There is direct evidence that President George W. Bush did not honorably lead this nation, but deliberately misled it into a war he wanted. Bush and his administration knowingly lied to Congress and to the American public — lies that have cost the lives of more than 4,000 young American soldiers and close to $1 trillion.

A Monumental Lie
In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.
…
Preparing its declassified version of the NIE for Congress, which became known as the White Paper, the Bush administration edited the classified NIE document in ways that significantly changed its inference and meaning, making the threat seem imminent and ominous.

In the original NIE report, members of the U.S. intelligence community vigorously disagreed with the CIA’s bloated and inaccurate conclusions. All such opposing commentary was eliminated from the declassified White Paper prepared for Congress and the American people.

The Manning Memo
On January 31, 2003, Bush met in the Oval Office with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. … Bush was so worried about the failure of the UN inspectors to find hard evidence against Hussein that he talked about three possible ways, Manning wrote, to “provoke a confrontation” with Hussein. One way, Bush said, was to fly “U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, [falsely] painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach” of UN resolutions and that would justify war. Bush was calculating to create a war, not prevent one.

Denying Blix’s Findings
Hans Blix, the United Nation’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq, in his March 7, 2003, address to the UN Security Council, said that as of that date, less than 3 weeks before Bush invaded Iraq, that Iraq had capitulated to all demands for professional, no-notice weapons inspections all over Iraq and agreed to increased aerial surveillance by the U.S. over the “no-fly” zones. ……The UN inspectors were making substantial progress and Hussein was giving them unlimited access. Why was Bush in such an incredible rush to go to war?

Hussein Disarms, so Bush … Goes to War
When it became clear that the whole purpose of Bush’s prewar campaign — to get Hussein to disarm — was being (or already had been) met, Bush and his people came up with a demand they had never once made before — that Hussein resign and leave Iraq. … Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.” Military conflict — the lives of thousands of young Americans on the line — because Bush trumped up a new line in the sand?

The guy Allegation
One of the most notorious instances of the Bush administration using thoroughly discredited information to frighten the American public was the 16 words in Bush’s January 28, 2003 State of the Union speech: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The guy allegation was false, and the Bush administration knew it was false.
…
On January 24, 2003, four days before the president’s State of the Union address, the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, which oversees all federal agencies that deal with intelligence, sent a memo to the White House stating that “the guy story is baseless and should be laid to rest.”

The 9/11 Lie
The Bush administration put undue pressure on U.S. intelligence agencies to provide it with conclusions that would help them in their quest for war. Bush’s former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, said that on September 12, 2001, one day after 9/11, “The President in a very intimidating way left us — me and my staff — with the clear indication that he wanted us to come back with the word that there was an Iraqi hand behind 9/11.”…

Even after Bush admitted on September 17, 2003, that he had “no evidence” that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11, he audaciously continued, in the months and years that followed, to clearly suggest, without stating it outright, that Hussein was involved in 9/11.

On March 20, 2006, Bush said, “I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack on America.”

Vincent Bugliosi received his law degree in 1964. In his career at the L.A. County District Attorney’s office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson case, became the basis of his classic, Helter Skelter, the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing history. The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder is available May 27.http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/09/8834/print/

I agree with this cursory analysis.  In my opinion, Bush is a murderer.  I mean look at all the dead bodies resulting from his command.  Bugliosi does show the president's knowledge and malevolent intent.

[Dos Equis]

Oh brother.  Yes indict Bush for the murder of American soldiers.  Where do these people come up with these cockamamie ideas? 

[Decker]

Oh brother.  Yes indict Bush for the murder of American soldiers.  Where do these people come up with these cockamamie ideas? 

Oh I think his record as one of the nation's finest criminal prosecutors gives him credibility.  Don't you?

[Dos Equis]

Oh I think his record as one of the nation's finest criminal prosecutors gives him credibility.  Don't you?

Yes he has credibility. 

No, that doesn't make this murder scenario credible.  It's dumb.  Let's dissect this nonsense:

The murder victims are soldiers?  Who pulled the trigger? 

Since it wasn't Bush, are talking about conspiracy to commit murder?  If so, did he conspire with insurgents?

[Decker]

Yes he has credibility. 

No, that doesn't make this murder scenario credible.  It's dumb.  Let's dissect this nonsense:

The murder victims are soldiers?  Who pulled the trigger? 

Since it wasn't Bush, are talking about conspiracy to commit murder?  If so, did he conspire with insurgents?

I see what you mean.  Since US law does not extend to the Iraqis Bush had slain through his command, only the US soldiers would be the object of a murder investigation.

It could go something like this:  Bush created the dangerous situation in Iraq and he sent those boys in there without authority and without justification.  That sort of black heart act would most certainly qualify for murder. 

Or is it a whoopsie mistake.  Sorry you 4000+, we really thought there were WMDs (wink wink) and Hussein was a bad man!

Under your threshhold for criminal enterprise Beach Bum, Al Capone would have been a free man, the Una bomber would have been a political scapegoat and GW Bush would be a resolute leader with no blood on his hands.

But you are a stickler for detail Beach Bum.  So here are your details:

§ 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

You disappoint me Beach Bum.  Even you should see that Bush's invasion was a naked act of aggression.  Wars of aggression are war crimes under this statute.

Punishable by imprisonment or death.

[Dos Equis]

I see what you mean.  Since US law does not extend to the Iraqis Bush had slain through his command, only the US soldiers would be the object of a murder investigation.

It could go something like this:  Bush created the dangerous situation in Iraq and he sent those boys in there without authority and without justification.  That sort of black heart act would most certainly qualify for murder. 

Or is it a whoopsie mistake.  Sorry you 4000+, we really thought there were WMDs (wink wink) and Hussein was a bad man!

Under your threshhold for criminal enterprise Beach Bum, Al Capone would have been a free man, the Una bomber would have been a political scapegoat and GW Bush would be a resolute leader with no blood on his hands.

But you are a stickler for detail Beach Bum.  So here are your details:

§ 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

You disappoint me Beach Bum.  Even you should see that Bush's invasion was a naked act of aggression.  Wars of aggression are war crimes under this statute.

Punishable by imprisonment or death.

I see.  So when you are shown the "murder" allegation makes no sense, you now change the subject to "war crimes."  Yet another example of moving the goal posts.  Why not just say his murder proposition is wrong, but perhaps it's a war crime? 

In any event, let's substitute "war crime" for "murder" as you have done, even though that's not what this highly regarded former prosecutor said.  Which of the following do you contend Bush violated for which he should prosecuted and sentenced to prison or death?

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians. 

[Decker]

I see.  So when you are shown the "murder" allegation makes no sense, you now change the subject to "war crimes."  Yet another example of moving the goal posts.  Why not just say his murder proposition is wrong, but perhaps it's a war crime? 

In any event, let's substitute "war crime" for "murder" as you have done, even though that's not what this highly regarded former prosecutor said.  Which of the following do you contend Bush violated for which he should prosecuted and sentenced to prison or death?

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians. 

Killings are homicides that become murder with intent.  Murder can be intentionally setting someone up in a deadly situation under false pretenses.  That type of murder under the direction of a war time commander in chief is a war crime.

That was easy.

 

[Dos Equis]

Killings are homicides that become murder with intent.  Murder can be intentionally setting someone up in a deadly situation under false pretenses.  That type of murder under the direction of a war time commander in chief is a war crime.

That was easy.

 

So now you're changing the facts again?  Are you talking about murder as defined by state or federal law, or a war crime as defined by the law you cited? 

If you're talking about murder under state or federal law, what's the reference?  I'll read it. 

If you're talking about murder under the law you cited, which of the following do you contend Bush violated for which he should be prosecuted and sentenced to prison or death? 

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians. 

[MB_722]

So now you're changing the facts again?  Are you talking about murder as defined by state or federal law, or a war crime as defined by the law you cited? 

If you're talking about murder under state or federal law, what's the reference?  I'll read it. 

If you're talking about murder under the law you cited, which of the following do you contend Bush violated for which he should be prosecuted and sentenced to prison or death? 

Alright I know this is rude but fuck it,

are you retarded? or what?

bush sent troops into iraq under false pretenses and they died because of it. Whatever you are trying to twist isn't working.

[Dos Equis]

Alright I know this is rude but fuck it,

are you retarded? or what?

bush sent troops into iraq under false pretenses and they died because of it. Whatever you are trying to twist isn't working.

I think the more appropriate term is "retard."  So, you would say "are you a retard," not "are you retarded."  At least according to my kids.

Now, unless you want to walk through this analysis like an adult, I propose that you sit back, be quiet, and try and learn something.       

[MB_722]

I think the more appropriate term is "retard."  So, you would say "are you a retard," not "are you retarded."  At least according to my kids.

Now, unless you want to walk through this analysis like an adult, I propose that you sit back, be quiet, and try and learn something.       

Nope

re·tard·ed Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-tahr-did]
–adjective
1.   characterized by retardation: a retarded child.
–noun
2.   (used with a plural verb) mentally retarded persons collectively (usually prec. by the): new schools for the retarded.
[Origin: 1800–10; retard + -ed2]

—Synonyms backward, disabled, handicapped.


anyway what bush and his cronies did is murder no matter how you try to twist it. he led them there, they died because of him.

[Dos Equis]

Nope

re·tard·ed Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-tahr-did]
–adjective
1.   characterized by retardation: a retarded child.
–noun
2.   (used with a plural verb) mentally retarded persons collectively (usually prec. by the): new schools for the retarded.
[Origin: 1800–10; retard + -ed2]

—Synonyms backward, disabled, handicapped.


anyway what bush and his cronies did is murder no matter how you try to twist it. he led them there, they died because of him.

Not talking about dictionary definitions.  Talking about vernacular. 

Go back and read my questions to Decker.  You're welcome to answer them too.  Don't just make some vague allegation of murder.  Walk through the analysis. 

[Decker]

So now you're changing the facts again?  Are you talking about murder as defined by state or federal law, or a war crime as defined by the law you cited?

I'm sorry but I don't know what you are talking about.  I gave you a common law description of how a homicide becomes a murder.   

If you're talking about murder under state or federal law, what's the reference?  I'll read it.

Murder is defined under every state and federal statue concerning the matter. 

If you're talking about murder under the law you cited, which of the following do you contend Bush violated for which he should be prosecuted and sentenced to prison or death? 

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_criminals#Crimes
... War crimes include such acts as mistreatment of prisoners of war or civilians. War crimes are sometimes part of instances of mass murder and genocide though these crimes are more broadly covered under international humanitarian law described as crimes against humanity. 

The Nuremburg holdings...the UN Charter...the Hague War Crimes Tribunal....you name it, Bush has danced on it.


I'd say 4000+ murders adds up to a crime against humanity

[OzmO]

I got his book on the JFK thing.......1500 pages. 

[Straw Man]

I think the more appropriate term is "retard."  So, you would say "are you a retard," not "are you retarded."  At least according to my kids.

Now, unless you want to walk through this analysis like an adult, I propose that you sit back, be quiet, and try and learn something.       

god you're dumb

If you're actually talking about a retarded person then called them a retard is totally insulting

Let's pray to the Baby Jesus you're not "homeskoolin" your kids

[War-Horse]

Excellant find Decker.    Let the games begin!!!! 

[Dos Equis]

I'm sorry but I don't know what you are talking about.  I gave you a common law description of how a homicide becomes a murder.   
Murder is defined under every state and federal statue concerning the matter. 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_criminals#Crimes
... War crimes include such acts as mistreatment of prisoners of war or civilians. War crimes are sometimes part of instances of mass murder and genocide though these crimes are more broadly covered under international humanitarian law described as crimes against humanity. 

The Nuremburg holdings...the UN Charter...the Hague War Crimes Tribunal....you name it, Bush has danced on it.


I'd say 4000+ murders adds up to a crime against humanity

You're still avoiding the issues Decker.  

1.  Murder isn't defined by "common law" whatever that is, it is, as you said, "defined under every state and federal statue concerning the matter."  I understand why you don't want to specify which specific state or federal murder statute might apply, because you will likely have trouble fitting Bush's alleged conduct under the definition of any of those statutes.  If not, prove me wrong.  Give me a statute reference, I'll read it, and we can discuss the specific provisions of that statute.  

2.  You won't tell me which specific provision of the law you cited that Bush allegedly violated.  Telling.  Which specific section of the war crimes statute that you cited did Bush violate for which he can be prosecuted and put in prison or sentenced to death?  

3.  Now you're changing the facts yet again saying "crimes against humanity."  Where is that reference?  Cite it.  

4.  You're changing the facts . . . again and mentioning "The Nuremburg holdings...the UN Charter...the Hague War Crimes Tribunal....you name it . . . ."  Isn't this what you folks call the "wet noodle" approach?  Throw it up on the wall and see what sticks?  So now Bush violated some unspecified "Nuremburg holdings," etc.?    

You can do better than this Decker.  You’re too smart to pretend that you don’t know what I’m talking about.  If you just say from a moral standpoint you think he is a murderer that is one thing, but if you're going to say he should be prosecuted for murder, then be specific.  And quit changing the facts just because they don't support your opinion.  

[War-Horse]

Youre not proved as a murderer before you go to trial.   It is usually suspicion of murder, due to evidence to be presented.   So the actual proof of the word is irrelavant.......that is a sideshow tactic.


Many people are seeing huge issues to this administration.

[tonymctones]

makes no sense, I see his line of logic here but if you did this than youd have to hold every president to the same standards, clinton and the uss cole, kennedy and the bay of pigs...I know I know "false pretenses" but as I've said before and undoubtedly will say again b/c most of us cant remember this, the VAST majority of this country wanted to go to war but now that shit hasnt gone as planned many ppl are backing out leaving the president with shit.

What about Ahmadinejad and Iran undoubtedly he has had some hand in our soldiers deaths either directly or indirectly, this makes him a murderer in your eyes does it not? but he is left alone, I know I know they wouldnt be able to kill them if they werent there, guess what if we had just went into afgahnistan Iran would still be helping the terrorist.

Like I said I can see his line of logic but it is retarded

[Decker]

You're still avoiding the issues Decker. 

1.  Murder isn't defined by "common law" whatever that is, it is, as you said, "defined under every state and federal statue concerning the matter."  I understand why you don't want to specify which specific state or federal murder statute might apply, because you will likely have trouble fitting Bush's alleged conduct under the definition of any of those statutes.  If not, prove me wrong.  Give me a statute reference, I'll read it, and we can discuss the specific provisions of that statute. 

Actually it is quite easy to show that Bush’s conduct satisfies the elements of murder:

(I went to law school in Illinois so I’ll grab their statutory definition)

A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:
        (1) he either intends to kill or do great bodily harm
       to that individual or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that individual or another; or

        (2) he knows that such acts create a strong
       probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another; or

        (3) he is attempting or committing a forcible felony
       other than second degree murder.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+9&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=29493&SeqStart=10600000&SeqEnd=11500000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961%2E

Bush knew that his unjustified attack of Iraq would result in great bodily harm or death to the troops.  His illegal invasion created a strong probability of death.  He intended (for whatever motive—it doesn’t matter) to send those men and women to their death.  He sent them to their deaths under false pretenses.  He initiated a war of aggression that had nothing to do with disarming Iraq.

He’s a murderer.  A mass murderer.

2.  You won't tell me which specific provision of the law you cited that Bush allegedly violated.  Telling.  Which specific section of the war crimes statute that you cited did Bush violate for which he can be prosecuted and put in prison or sentenced to death? 

3.  Now you're changing the facts yet again saying "crimes against humanity."  Where is that reference?  Cite it. 

4.  You're changing the facts . . . again and mentioning "The Nuremburg holdings...the UN Charter...the Hague War Crimes Tribunal....you name it . . . ."  Isn't this what you folks call the "wet noodle" approach?  Throw it up on the wall and see what sticks?  So now Bush violated some unspecified "Nuremburg holdings," etc.?   

You can do better than this Decker.  You’re too smart to pretend that you don’t know what I’m talking about.  If you just say from a moral standpoint you think he is a murderer that is one thing, but if you're going to say he should be prosecuted for murder, then be specific.  And quit changing the facts just because they don't support your opinion. 

The murder allegation is Bugliosi’s.  The war crime charge is my own.  There are 42 books to the Nuremberg Trial.  Here’s a summary of the Nuremberg Crimes:

(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war.  Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html

Under domestic law, Bush is a murderer of his own people.  Under international law, he is a murderer of foreigners and a war criminal.
 

[Decker]

makes no sense, I see his line of logic here but if you did this than youd have to hold every president to the same standards, clinton and the uss cole, kennedy and the bay of pigs...I know I know "false pretenses" but as I've said before and undoubtedly will say again b/c most of us cant remember this, the VAST majority of this country wanted to go to war but now that shit hasnt gone as planned many ppl are backing out leaving the president with shit.

What about Ahmadinejad and Iran undoubtedly he has had some hand in our soldiers deaths either directly or indirectly, this makes him a murderer in your eyes does it not? but he is left alone, I know I know they wouldnt be able to kill them if they werent there, guess what if we had just went into afgahnistan Iran would still be helping the terrorist.

Like I said I can see his line of logic but it is retarded

Bush knowingly lied and ordered a military invasion that was an aggressive, not defensive, war. 

I don't care about Kennedy or the bay of pigs.  That was almost 50 years ago.  Bugliosi is talking about Bush.

Who cares what the country wanted?  They were fed the manufactured lies by the Bush Administration re the threat posed by Iraq.  Same with the Congress.

Ahmadinejad is irrelevant to the discussion.  But if you must, there is no hard evidence showing Iran's government is arming the Iraqi resistance.

[Dos Equis]

Actually it is quite easy to show that Bush’s conduct satisfies the elements of murder:

(I went to law school in Illinois so I’ll grab their statutory definition)

A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:
        (1) he either intends to kill or do great bodily harm
       to that individual or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that individual or another; or

        (2) he knows that such acts create a strong
       probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another; or

        (3) he is attempting or committing a forcible felony
       other than second degree murder.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+9&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=29493&SeqStart=10600000&SeqEnd=11500000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961%2E

Bush knew that his unjustified attack of Iraq would result in great bodily harm or death to the troops.  His illegal invasion created a strong probability of death.  He intended (for whatever motive—it doesn’t matter) to send those men and women to their death.  He sent them to their deaths under false pretenses.  He initiated a war of aggression that had nothing to do with disarming Iraq.

He’s a murderer.  A mass murderer.

 The murder allegation is Bugliosi’s.  The war crime charge is my own.  There are 42 books to the Nuremberg Trial.  Here’s a summary of the Nuremberg Crimes:

(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war.  Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html

Under domestic law, Bush is a murderer of his own people.  Under international law, he is a murderer of foreigners and a war criminal.
 

Ah yes.  Details.  Thanks.   

Here is the problem with your murder analysis:

1.  Bush is a resident of Texas and works in D.C., so we're probably talking about whatever murder law applies in D.C. or Texas.  Not a major point, because I would imagine the definitions are pretty similar. 

2.  You skipped right over the part that kills your argument:  "A person who kills an individual . . . ."  Bush didn't kill an individual.  That one doesn't work.

What Bugliosi did was recklessly throw out the term murder without tying Bush's conduct directly to any murder statute.

You tried to save him by substituting "war crimes" for "murder."  I see you have abandoned your war crimes allegation?  You still haven't said which provision of the wars crimes statute you claim Bush violated. 

Regarding the crimes against humanity, etc.  You're now saying the president of the United States should be prosecuted by a foreign entity for conduct that was authorized by the Congress of the United States and assisted by many countries around the world.  Not buying that one either. 

The "crimes against peace" has one possible application:  "war of aggression."  This one fails for a variety of reasons: 
- Congress gave Bush the authority to use "aggression" in his discretion.
- The UN essentially laid the groundwork for the U.S. to use force.
- Congress endorsed the war after it started.
- Congress has funded and continues to fund the war.
- A number of countries participated in the war.
- The UN has never passed any sort of resolution accusing the U.S. of misconduct.

Given those facts, when considered together, there is no way any international court could even prosecute, much less convict the president of murder.

The other two ("war crimes" and "crimes against humanity") fail because there was no "murder."   

[tonymctones]

Bush knowingly lied and ordered a military invasion that was an aggressive, not defensive, war. 

I don't care about Kennedy or the bay of pigs.  That was almost 50 years ago.  Bugliosi is talking about Bush.

Who cares what the country wanted?  They were fed the manufactured lies by the Bush Administration re the threat posed by Iraq.  Same with the Congress.

Ahmadinejad is irrelevant to the discussion.  But if you must, there is no hard evidence showing Iran's government is arming the Iraqi resistance.

what hard evidence is there or Bush's lying its just mere speculation and opinon, do you really believe that the government releases all its intelligence to the media? I forgot you are previe to info that the general public is not. How about insurgents with arms and explosives that could only have been obtained through iran? If you dont buy that which im sure you dont then what about assistance of any kind? OH BUT WAIT ITS NOT HARD EVIDENCE well if there was HARD EVIDENCE that bush did indeed lie about wmd in order to provoke a war he would be held responsible but i guess since he is still the president its just there is no hard evidence.

[Hugo Chavez]

BB, you're an idiot.

[Dos Equis]

BB, you're an idiot.