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

[Decker]

Ah yes.  Details.  Thanks.   

Here is the problem with your murder analysis:

...
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.

So all I have to do is to kill more than one person at a time to evade murder charges?  Bush killed 4000+ individuals.  It does work.  Trust me...Manson is behind bars still for mulitple killings he ordered.

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

Bugliosi is anything but reckless.  Wrongful Act (homicide) and Wrongful mind (Intent) = Murder.

Just look at that Illinois definition again.  Creating the dangerous situation on purpose which causes death is murder as well.  Bush ordered the invasion even though Iraq was complying with inspections and the UN Security Council DID NOT authorize the attack.

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. 

He doesn't need my help.  The crimes defined and employed at the Nuremberg trials are an amalgam of treaties and judicial holdings. 

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. 

Did the UN Security Council authorize the invasion ordered by Bush?  No.  That is why it is illegal under international law.

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."
[/quote]Those facts are interesting but irrelevant. 

Did the UN Security Council authorize the invasion ordered by Bush?  No.

If a use of force, by an individual or a country, is not justified (i.e., self defense), then it is an illegal use of force and justified killings become murder.

[MB_722]

BB, you're an idiot.

this pretty much sums it up.

hahaha 

[Dos Equis]

So all I have to do is to kill more than one person at a time to evade murder charges?  Bush killed 4000+ individuals.  It does work.  Trust me...Manson is behind bars still for mulitple killings he ordered.
Bugliosi is anything but reckless.  Wrongful Act (homicide) and Wrongful mind (Intent) = Murder.

Just look at that Illinois definition again.  Creating the dangerous situation on purpose which causes death is murder as well.  Bush ordered the invasion even though Iraq was complying with inspections and the UN Security Council DID NOT authorize the attack.

 He doesn't need my help.  The crimes defined and employed at the Nuremberg trials are an amalgam of treaties and judicial holdings. 
Did the UN Security Council authorize the invasion ordered by Bush?  No.  That is why it is illegal under international law.
 
The other two ("war crimes" and "crimes against humanity") fail because there was no "murder."
Those facts are interesting but irrelevant. 

Did the UN Security Council authorize the invasion ordered by Bush?  No.

If a use of force, by an individual or a country, is not justified (i.e., self defense), then it is an illegal use of force and justified killings become murder.

I looked at the definition again.  It requires one person to kill another:  "A person who kills an individual . . . ."    

Was Charles Manson convicted of murder or conspiracy to commit murder?  If it was both, it was likely because he took part in at least one of the murders.  (I should know this after having read Bugliosi's unreasonably long book.)  You want to talk about conspiracy next?  

What does the federal murder statute say?  Wouldn't he be charged under federal law, since this so-called crime occurred on federal property in D.C.?  

I'll leave your international law argument alone.  I've got nothing more to add.  Perhaps we can pick that part up again if and when the UN says Bush committed crimes against humanity, murder, etc.  

BTW, wouldn't the leader of every country who participated in the war also be subject to prosecution for murder under your analysis?  

[MidniteRambo]

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

i.e.,- Vince Bugliosi is a famous prosecutor so his political ramblings about Bush are therefore true.


See "Logical Fallacy:  Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

[Decker]

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.

Why do you have to be mean about it?

Are you claiming that Bugliosi is lying about the NIE that the Bush Administration doctored?  Boy, that would undermine a good part of his book.  

Iraq report discredits intelligence
Senate panel points finger at CIA, Tenet
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff  |  July 10, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The intelligence reports used to make the case for the Iraq war were almost all overstated, not supported by the facts, or simply wrong, a Senate panel concluded yesterday after a yearlong investigation into prewar information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Despite the CIA's conclusions, reached before the war, President Bush and other administration officials asserted then that Hussein helped train Al Qaeda fighters, and Vice President Dick Cheney continues to make the connection while on the campaign trail.

Nevertheless, the report also pointed out that in some areas the UN inspectors came up with different, more accurate conclusions than US intelligence agencies, but they were not taken seriously by the Americans. (read Bush Administration)

Despite the flaws in US intelligence uncovered by the UN inspectors, however, the conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate were not revised. The war began in March, 2003.

[Bush stated stuff like the following as FACT when it was Conjecture]:
The claim that Iraq had 500 tons of chemical weapons was based on a spring 2002 report that said Iraq may be engaged in transporting such materials. That assessment, however, was based on an earlier assessment that the presence of a particular tanker truck was a possible indicator that chemical or biological weapons activities were underway.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/07/10/iraq_report_discredits_intelligence/

Look up the "iraqi informant" named Curveball.  Look up Chalabi.  All their lies were passed off as truth.

I still haven't seen any hard evidence about Iran's gov. arming the Iraqi resistance.

[Decker]

I looked at the definition again.  It requires one person to kill another:  "A person who kills an individual . . . ."   

You are reading it wrongly.  Bush created the deadly situation.  It's as if he pulled the trigger himself.  You are making an issue where none exists.

Was Charles Manson convicted of murder or conspiracy to commit murder?  If it was both, it was likely because he took part in at least one of the murders.  (I should know this after having read Bugliosi's unreasonably long book.)  You want to talk about conspiracy next?   

It doesn't matter b/c you are misreading HOW the killer kills another person.  Technically there is no conspiracy unless there's an agreement to commit a crime and generally some step is taken towards its commission.

What does the federal murder statute say?  Wouldn't he be charged under federal law, since this so-called crime occurred on federal property in D.C.? 

It doesn't matter.  That's why I started with the common law definition of murder...to illustrate wrongful mind and wrongful act.

In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

I'll leave your international law argument alone.  I've got nothing more to add.  Perhaps we can pick that part up again if and when the UN says Bush committed crimes against humanity, murder, etc. 

BTW, wouldn't the leader of every country who participated in the war also be subject to prosecution for murder under your analysis? 

We have no jurisdiction over the other leaders except through the UN.  For domestic charges, I would include Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and any other conspirator in the crime.  But only the President has the constitutional power to order the military to attack.  That's why he's the killer.

[Decker]

i.e.,- Vince Bugliosi is a famous prosecutor so his political ramblings about Bush are therefore true.


See "Logical Fallacy:  Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Thank you for misreading my statement and mistating it and for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion but your own straw argument.

[Dos Equis]

You are reading it wrongly.  Bush created the deadly situation.  It's as if he pulled the trigger himself.  You are making an issue where none exists.
 It doesn't matter b/c you are misreading HOW the killer kills another person.  Technically there is no conspiracy unless there's an agreement to commit a crime and generally some step is taken towards its commission.
 It doesn't matter.  That's why I started with the common law definition of murder...to illustrate wrongful mind and wrongful act.

In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm
We have no jurisdiction over the other leaders except through the UN.  For domestic charges, I would include Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and any other conspirator in the crime.  But only the President has the constitutional power to order the military to attack.  That's why he's the killer.

Actually I think you're reading it wrongly.  One person killing another is a prerequisite, at least the way it's worded. 

Re Mason, of course it matters.  If you're trying to compare Manson to Bush, you have to clarify whether Manson was convicted of murder or just conspiracy to commit murder.  If it was only conspiracy, then your argument really falls apart.  You have a much harder case for Bush conspiring to murder American soldiers.     

It doesn't matter whether a federal murder statute applies to a person who allegedly committed the federal crime of murder?  You’re not serious?  "Common law" is irrelevant.  Who gets charged with "common law" murder?  What is that?

You really didn't respond to the question about whether the leaders of other countries would also be subject to prosecution based on the laws, etc. that you mentioned.  Not talking about domestic murder charges.  I'm talking about the "Nuremberg Crimes" you mentioned.  What's the difference between Bush and the leader of every other country who participated in the war?  Why wouldn't they be subject to prosecution for "Nuremberg Crimes" too?   

[MidniteRambo]

Thank you for misreading my statement and mistating it and for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion but your own straw argument.

See Disamgibuation, better known as the fallacy of "wishful thinking" : "the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

I'm sure an ad hominem is to follow . . .

[Decker]

Actually I think you're reading it wrongly.  One person killing another is a prerequisite, at least the way it's worded. 

Where's the controversy?  Bush's act of ordering the attack killed many people.  To commit murder you have to kill at least one person.  See, that's a floor and not a ceiling.

Re Mason, of course it matters.  If you're trying to compare Manson to Bush, you have to clarify whether Manson was convicted of murder or just conspiracy to commit murder.  If it was only conspiracy, then your argument really falls apart.  You have a much harder case for Bush conspiring to murder American soldiers.   

You're fixating on Manson for no apparent reason.  Bush is the killer who personally created/made possible the deadly illegal invasion of Iraq.  Without Bush pulling the trigger, those people would still be alive. 

Conspiracy does not play a role in Bush's criminal culpability b/c the decision to invade Iraq was his and his alone to make.  He was the only one that could create the shitstorm of violence in Iraq and he did with NO JUSTIFICATION.  There was no one with whom he could conspire on the matter b/c only the president of the US can order troops to invade another country.  Now Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others...those are conspirators.

It doesn't matter whether a federal murder statute applies to a person who allegedly committed the federal crime of murder?  You’re not serious?  "Common law" is irrelevant.  Who gets charged with "common law" murder?  What is that?

You are talking as if this will happen.  Don't you know that a sitting president is immune from prosecution?  Showing that the president is a mass murderer under our laws (Beach Bum, statutes just codify common law for the most part).  Apparently that just doesn't register with you or bother you.

You really didn't respond to the question about whether the leaders of other countries would also be subject to prosecution based on the laws, etc. that you mentioned.  Not talking about domestic murder charges.  I'm talking about the "Nuremberg Crimes" you mentioned.  What's the difference between Bush and the leader of every other country who participated in the war?  Why wouldn't they be subject to prosecution for "Nuremberg Crimes" too?   

They would.

[Decker]

See Disamgibuation, better known as the fallacy of "wishful thinking" : "the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

I'm sure an ad hominem is to follow . . .

Please see 'relevancy' as in being 'germane' to the topic at hand, as in adding something of quality to the discussion by commenting on the scope of the matter discussed instead of cutting and pasting Wikipedia quotes that give you the illusion that your making a point of substance.

I'm absolutely certain that another irrelevant cutnpaste job will follow.

[Dos Equis]

Where's the controversy?  Bush's act of ordering the attack killed many people.  To commit murder you have to kill at least one person.  See, that's a floor and not a ceiling.
You're fixating on Manson for no apparent reason.  Bush is the killer who personally created/made possible the deadly illegal invasion of Iraq.  Without Bush pulling the trigger, those people would still be alive. 

Conspiracy does not play a role in Bush's criminal culpability b/c the decision to invade Iraq was his and his alone to make.  He was the only one that could create the shitstorm of violence in Iraq and he did with NO JUSTIFICATION.  There was no one with whom he could conspire on the matter b/c only the president of the US can order troops to invade another country.  Now Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others...those are conspirators.You are talking as if this will happen.  Don't you know that a sitting president is immune from prosecution?  Showing that the president is a mass murderer under our laws (Beach Bum, statutes just codify common law for the most part).  Apparently that just doesn't register with you or bother you.
They would.

I'm not fixating on Manson.  You brought up Charles Manson.  You've basically admitted your Manson comparison is inapplicable, if Manson was only guilty of conspiracy. 

If the president can be prosecuted after he leaves office, for a crime committed while in office, then whatever law governing the place where the crime was committed would apply, no?  Wouldn't that be a federal murder statute? 

What doesn't register with me is unsupportable allegations that sound good, pander to mindless drones (not you), but fall apart when you actually start talking about specific crimes.  That's why I never bought the impeachment talk. 

BTW, I assume you abandoned your initial contention that Bush committed a war crime based on the statute you cited. 

This reminds me of what Ken Starr did in his investigation.  I read the Starr Report and I don't recall him ever dealing with the issue of whether Clinton's lie was material (perjury being lying under oath about a material fact).  He just said Bill Clinton lied under oath (which he did) and that the lie was perjury.  Drove me nuts. 

Same problem here IMO.  Call Bush a murderer, but can't establish that any act he committed is murder under (what I think should be) federal law.  I’ll be interested to see if Bugliosi actually connects the dots.   

Thanks for answering the question regarding other world leaders.  At least you're consistent. 

[tonymctones]

Why do you have to be mean about it?

Are you claiming that Bugliosi is lying about the NIE that the Bush Administration doctored?  Boy, that would undermine a good part of his book.  

Iraq report discredits intelligence
Senate panel points finger at CIA, Tenet
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff  |  July 10, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The intelligence reports used to make the case for the Iraq war were almost all overstated, not supported by the facts, or simply wrong, a Senate panel concluded yesterday after a yearlong investigation into prewar information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Despite the CIA's conclusions, reached before the war, President Bush and other administration officials asserted then that Hussein helped train Al Qaeda fighters, and Vice President Dick Cheney continues to make the connection while on the campaign trail.

Nevertheless, the report also pointed out that in some areas the UN inspectors came up with different, more accurate conclusions than US intelligence agencies, but they were not taken seriously by the Americans. (read Bush Administration)

Despite the flaws in US intelligence uncovered by the UN inspectors, however, the conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate were not revised. The war began in March, 2003.

[Bush stated stuff like the following as FACT when it was Conjecture]:
The claim that Iraq had 500 tons of chemical weapons was based on a spring 2002 report that said Iraq may be engaged in transporting such materials. That assessment, however, was based on an earlier assessment that the presence of a particular tanker truck was a possible indicator that chemical or biological weapons activities were underway.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/07/10/iraq_report_discredits_intelligence/

Look up the "iraqi informant" named Curveball.  Look up Chalabi.  All their lies were passed off as truth.

I still haven't seen any hard evidence about Iran's gov. arming the Iraqi resistance.

LOL sorry but I think if you go back and read your original response to me you werent that nice either, maybe I got some residual anger from you and Beach Bums arguement...

This gives reason to think that they might have wmd right? again you havent shown that he knowingly lied only that he was wrong and as of now this is no big news, you havent shown that he KNOWINGLY LIED ABOUT IT, again do you think that the government actually releases all of its intelligence to the general public?

Do you think that Iran is offereing assistance of any kind? food/water, shelter, money...how about aiding states/organizations with known terrorist ties?

IMO its infintely more likely that Iran is aiding terrorist in Iraq and other countries than bush lying about wmd for the purposes of provoking a war although no hard evidence is there to prove either.

[War-Horse]

At least gods going to kill all the "Illegal occupation war supporters" someday.   That will be a good day.

[Decker]

I'm not fixating on Manson.  You brought up Charles Manson.  You've basically admitted your Manson comparison is inapplicable, if Manson was only guilty of conspiracy. 

...Charles was found guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/306:157/1/Charles_Manson.htm

If the president can be prosecuted after he leaves office, for a crime committed while in office, then whatever law governing the place where the crime was committed would apply, no?  Wouldn't that be a federal murder statute?

I'm not sure which law would apply.  I haven't gotten into that part of the book yet.

What doesn't register with me is unsupportable allegations that sound good, pander to mindless drones (not you), but fall apart when you actually start talking about specific crimes.  That's why I never bought the impeachment talk. 

If the Iraq war is an unjustified use of force, then that eliminates any defense Bush may have re self defense, defense of an ally. 

Was the invasion ordered to defend the US from attack?  No.

Was it ordered to defend an ally?  No

Why was it ordered then?

This is another example of why the reason we went to war is important.

BTW, I assume you abandoned your initial contention that Bush committed a war crime based on the statute you cited. 

I cited no War crime statute.  As I said before, international law re war crimes is an amalgam of court holdings and treaties.

(US Code) Section 1111. Murder

      (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
    aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or
    any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated
    killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to
    perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason,
    espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child
    abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or
    practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or
    perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously
    to effect the death of any human being other than him who is
    killed, is murder in the first degree.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/51/sections/section_1111.html

If the war is unlawful (which it was unless you can show me where the UN Security Council approved the invasion) how can the resulting deaths be lawful?

Bush ordered the invasion with premeditated design (Bush was constantly linking Al Qaeda to Hussein/Iraq, 9/11 and Hussein/Iraq, ONLY pro-WMD info & Iraq plus the various related pieces of evidence such as Bush's inclusion of the debunked guy story and the memo stating Bush offered to goad Hussein into war).

I'd say there's a lot more here than you are mentioning.

This reminds me of what Ken Starr did in his investigation.  I read the Starr Report and I don't recall him ever dealing with the issue of whether Clinton's lie was material (perjury being lying under oath about a material fact).  He just said Bill Clinton lied under oath (which he did) and that the lie was perjury.  Drove me nuts. 

Same problem here IMO.  Call Bush a murderer, but can't establish that any act he committed is murder under (what I think should be) federal law.  I’ll be interested to see if Bugliosi actually connects the dots.   

Thanks for answering the question regarding other world leaders.  At least you're consistent

Bill Clinton did lie under oath.  His lie didn't rise to the level of perjury though.

I want to read the rest of his book over the weekend.  If I get that done, I'll fill you in on the details.

[Decker]

LOL sorry but I think if you go back and read your original response to me you werent that nice either, maybe I got some residual anger from you and Beach Bums arguement...

This gives reason to think that they might have wmd right? again you havent shown that he knowingly lied only that he was wrong and as of now this is no big news, you havent shown that he KNOWINGLY LIED ABOUT IT, again do you think that the government actually releases all of its intelligence to the general public?

Do you think that Iran is offereing assistance of any kind? food/water, shelter, money...how about aiding states/organizations with known terrorist ties?

IMO its infintely more likely that Iran is aiding terrorist in Iraq and other countries than bush lying about wmd for the purposes of provoking a war although no hard evidence is there to prove either.

If WMD inspectors are on the ground in Iraq and finding no WMDs and Bush orders the inspectors out of Iraq so that he can attack Iraq for not disarming its WMDs then can you see a problem with that?

Is that presidential act the work of a man interested in avoiding war at all costs?  Or is that the act of a man ordering an attack in direct opposition to the best evidence available re WMDs in Iraq and disarmament?

Can you see how someone can look at Bush's actions and conclude that the invasion was not ordered to disarm Iraq, defend the US or defend an ally of ours?

[Dos Equis]

...Charles was found guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/306:157/1/Charles_Manson.htm
I'm not sure which law would apply.  I haven't gotten into that part of the book yet.
If the Iraq war is an unjustified use of force, then that eliminates any defense Bush may have re self defense, defense of an ally. 

Was the invasion ordered to defend the US from attack?  No.

Was it ordered to defend an ally?  No

Why was it ordered then?

This is another example of why the reason we went to war is important.
I cited no War crime statute.  As I said before, international law re war crimes is an amalgam of court holdings and treaties.

(US Code) Section 1111. Murder

      (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
    aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or
    any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated
    killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to
    perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason,
    espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child
    abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or
    practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or
    perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously
    to effect the death of any human being other than him who is
    killed, is murder in the first degree.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/51/sections/section_1111.html

If the war is unlawful (which it was unless you can show me where the UN Security Council approved the invasion) how can the resulting deaths be lawful?

Bush ordered the invasion with premeditated design (Bush was constantly linking Al Qaeda to Hussein/Iraq, 9/11 and Hussein/Iraq, ONLY pro-WMD info & Iraq plus the various related pieces of evidence such as Bush's inclusion of the debunked guy story and the memo stating Bush offered to goad Hussein into war).

I'd say there's a lot more here than you are mentioning.
Bill Clinton did lie under oath.  His lie didn't rise to the level of perjury though.

I want to read the rest of his book over the weekend.  If I get that done, I'll fill you in on the details.

You're not sure which law would apply, but you're sure Bush violated that law??

You cited no war crimes statute??  Then what is this?

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

Which provision of the above war crimes statute that you cited did Bush violate? 

I'll be interested to hear how Bugliosi pieces this together.  Please post the specific laws he claims Bush violated when you get to that point. 

[tonymctones]

If WMD inspectors are on the ground in Iraq and finding no WMDs and Bush orders the inspectors out of Iraq so that he can attack Iraq for not disarming its WMDs then can you see a problem with that?

Is that presidential act the work of a man interested in avoiding war at all costs?  Or is that the act of a man ordering an attack in direct opposition to the best evidence available re WMDs in Iraq and disarmament?

Can you see how someone can look at Bush's actions and conclude that the invasion was not ordered to disarm Iraq, defend the US or defend an ally of ours?

Come on decker how many times did he lock out UN inspectors?
In hindsight yes I can, do you see how someone could look at his actions and see that he was doing what he thought was best for the U.S. and its allies in that situation?

[Decker]

You're not sure which law would apply, but you're sure Bush violated that law??

That's why I gave the common law definition of murder b/c all murder definitions are pretty much the same.  I don't need to quote a specific statute to convey the meaning.

You cited no war crimes statute??  Then what is this?

Jeez, I forgot doing that.  I'm manning the office alone till Tuesday and these posts are interfering with work.

What's the matter with you Beach Bum?  Do you really expect me to remember stuff I posted yesterday at the beginning of the thread?  For shame.

Which provision of the above war crimes statute that you cited did Bush violate? 

I'll be interested to hear how Bugliosi pieces this together.  Please post the specific laws he claims Bush violated when you get to that point. 

The easy answer would be Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions where torture was authorized prior to the Miliatry Commissions Act of 2006.  But that diverges from the murder charges.  I have to see how the Nuremberg Holdings play a role in that statutory definition:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

The war crimes charges based on International Law will never materialize b/c the US does not recognize the jurisdictin of the World Court b/c the US is #1 on its docket for war crimes during the Reagan/Bush era (mined the harbors of Nicaragua).

[Decker]

Come on decker how many times did he lock out UN inspectors?
In hindsight yes I can, do you see how someone could look at his actions and see that he was doing what he thought was best for the U.S. and its allies in that situation?

You're right, Hussein did lock out inspectors.  But when the rubber met the road, he gave them access in 2002.

I'm sure everyone in their own mind thinks they are doing the right thing.  What Bush did was 'unauthorized' and in contradiction to the facts--he order the attack to disarm a disarmed and cooperating country.

[tonymctones]

You're right, Hussein did lock out inspectors.  But when the rubber met the road, he gave them access in 2002.

I'm sure everyone in their own mind thinks they are doing the right thing.  What Bush did was 'unauthorized' and in contradiction to the facts--he order the attack to disarm a disarmed and cooperating country.

hindsights 20/20 bro

[Decker]

hindsights 20/20 bro

No, I called it this way back in 2002.

It's bad policy to brutally attack a country that is cooperating with your requests.

[tonymctones]

No, I called it this way back in 2002.

It's bad policy to brutally attack a country that is cooperating with your requests.

to bad you werent prez then

[Dos Equis]

That's why I gave the common law definition of murder b/c all murder definitions are pretty much the same.  I don't need to quote a specific statute to convey the meaning.
Jeez, I forgot doing that.  I'm manning the office alone till Tuesday and these posts are interfering with work.

What's the matter with you Beach Bum?  Do you really expect me to remember stuff I posted yesterday at the beginning of the thread?  For shame.

The easy answer would be Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions where torture was authorized prior to the Miliatry Commissions Act of 2006.  But that diverges from the murder charges.  I have to see how the Nuremberg Holdings play a role in that statutory definition:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

The war crimes charges based on International Law will never materialize b/c the US does not recognize the jurisdictin of the World Court b/c the US is #1 on its docket for war crimes during the Reagan/Bush era (mined the harbors of Nicaragua).

I agree murder definitions would probably be pretty much the same, but they're not all the same.  Kinda of important to know which definition applies, particularly if you're talking about prosecuting the president of the United States and possibly sentencing him to death don't ya think?

No worries mang.  I have trouble remembering what I said ten minutes ago sometimes.  This whole multi-tasking thing sucks. 

Assuming Bush violated Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, that isn't murder. 

War crimes charges will never materialize because, frankly, they don't make any sense.  By your own admission, we'd possibly have the leaders of about 27 countries being tried for war crimes.   

[Decker]

I agree murder definitions would probably be pretty much the same, but they're not all the same.  Kinda of important to know which definition applies, particularly if you're talking about prosecuting the president of the United States and possibly sentencing him to death don't ya think?

Other than substituting terms of art like malice aforethought for intent, I can't think of any big differences. 

Do you know any qualitative difference?

No worries mang.  I have trouble remembering what I said ten minutes ago sometimes.  This whole multi-tasking thing sucks. 

It's one of those days.  I'm on hold as I type this.  I can't multitask.

Assuming Bush violated Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, that isn't murder.

I know.  I noted that, that's why I posted the Nuremberg principles...I have to see how those are integrated into the statute. 

War crimes charges will never materialize because, frankly, they don't make any sense.  By your own admission, we'd possibly have the leaders of about 27 countries being tried for war crimes.

   
So if there are multiple perpetrators, we should just ignore the crime? ? ?



Off topic, Beach Bum, I have to know, do you wear Hawaiian shirts?