Bush admin not likely to be charged with war crimes

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
if you want to charge Bush with murder, you could charge every single president with murder also as we have had military personel somewhere since WWII and if 1 is killed during that term it is now murder?

Only those that specifically lead the country into an illegal war under false pretenses. And yes, if there were older presidents still alive who fell into that category, I would want them brought to justice as well.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

if you want to charge Bush with murder, you could charge every single president with murder also as we have had military personel somewhere since WWII and if 1 is killed during that term it is now murder?

Idiots, him and all of you who agree with him.

Still sipping the Bushwhacko KoolAid, and you couldn't be more wrong. Going to war should never be taken lightly, but there are valid reasons for taking a nation to war. Unlike your Traitor In Chief's war of LIES in Iraq, we didn't volunteer to go to war in WW II. War came to us when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The following day, Adolph Hitler declared war against the U.S.

There are plenty of good grounds to charge the Bush administration with multiple felonies, including murder, treason, torture, war crimes and war profiteering. Another of their crimes, lying to Congress, which is a felony regardless of whether such lies are told under oath, directly supports charging them with murder under two theories:

1. Callous, Reckless or Wanton Disregard or Depraved Indifference

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. For example, under New York State Law:

MURDER SECOND DEGREE
(A-I Felony)
(Depraved Indifference Murder)
PENAL LAW 125.25(2)
(Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)
(Revised December 12, 2006)

Under our law, a person is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of that person [or of a third person].

The deaths of every American in Iraq are direct, foreseeable consequences of the Bushwhackos' felonious LIES to Congress. In his published statement, George McGovern said:

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

All of the American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the years we since the adminstration started their illegal war. If you question whether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from thousands of cases of mere negligent homicide, another criminal offense, to murder? :shocked:

2. The Felony-Murder Rule

A RULE OF LAW that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.

Generally an intent to kill is not necessary for felony-murder. The rule becomes operative when there is a killing during or a death soon after the felony, and there is some causal connection between the felony and the killing.

The felony-murder rule originated in England under the COMMON LAW. Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a ROBBERY accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Today most jurisdictions have limited the rule by requiring that the felony must be a dangerous one or that the killing is foreseeable, or both. Statutes that restrict the application of the rule to dangerous felonies usually enumerate the crimes. BURGLARY, KIDNAPPING, rape, and robbery are typical felonies that invoke the rule. Under a number of statutes, the felony must be a proximate cause of the death. In other words, the killing must have been a natural and direct consequence of the felony.

The Bushwhackos LIED TO CONGRESS to pimp their war, which is a felony even if it not done under oath. Starting any war is obviously dangerous, and as stated, death is a foreseeable consequence of war. The deaths of every American in Iraq were direct, foreseeable consequences of the administration's felonious lies to Congress.

As of 11/16/08, 4,201 American troops have died and tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life in your Traitor In Chief's war of LIES in Iraq.

That's more than enough to support charging him and his entire criminal cabal with murder.

 

[piasabird]

In World War II We used napalm on the Japanese and it was perfectly all right. Yes and we rounded them up and threw them in camps and stole their property.

Everything was Black and White!

So are we going to charge all the people that voted for funding the first go round on the Iraq war with War Crimes? You cant just stop at the President.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: piasabird
In World War II We used napalm on the Japanese and it was perfectly all right. Yes and we rounded them up and threw them in camps and stole their property.

its a battlefield and it was a pretty much no rules war.

Everything was Black and White!

So are we going to charge all the people that voted for funding the first go round on the Iraq war with War Crimes? You cant just stop at the President.

this i agree with, congress is just as much to blame. the president isnt KING of our country.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: microbial
Strateeegery

I always likes "hispanically" as a better example of Bushisms

 

[chrisho]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
thats okay, I really want him tried for murder instead

I'll Paypal you $5 if Obama does it. Never gonna happen.

The good news is that, according to the author, any district attorney in the US has the jurisdiction.

edit to add: Once bush leaves office that is. While in office, he's of course immune to prosecution.

He may be immune afterward as well. Richard Nixon threatened to invoke Presidential authority over his papers and such after he was out of office and the Congress with some hints from the courts backed down.

The simple fact is, Obama would destroy any chance at his own success if he allowed this to gain any traction. It would handcuff him to the point he could do nothing without running every decision past a bunch of lawyers because any action, even domestic, could be construed as causing harm to someone.

Look, we can't go after Clinton for operating on faulty intelligence anymore than going after Bush. If we really wanted to go after someone I think the best candidate in the past twenty years would be Janet Reno.

President Ford proved his worth by pardoning Nixon when he did. Ford was placed into the Whitehouse by members of Congress of both parties because they knew he would do what was right regardless. He was held in high esteem at the time he was appointed to the VP slot. He wasn't chosen for being a wuss and he probably made the single biggest and most important decision regarding the Presidency and our Republic.

No, Bush must not be charged. We change the direction of our system by our elections. If one side starts taking out what is perceived as vengeance it will bring the whole system to a halt.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Or perhaps, the slightly peripheral fact that, well, he's not guilty of war crimes.

What planet are you from? :roll:

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: XMan
Charging Bush with crimes would set a bad precedent that would give any future President serious pause in using military force to defend the nation.

He didnt use it to "defend the nation". Why say that? It makes you look like a partisan hack

 

[thegimp03]

Anyone who seriously thought he would be charged with "war crimes" has their heads stuck up their ass.

:roll:

 

[Mxylplyx]

Difficult for a sitting congress to charge the nations executive with war crimes for a war they willfully continued to fund.....isnt it?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Difficult for a sitting congress to charge the nations executive with war crimes for a war they willfully continued to fund.....isnt it?

Indeed. If Congress puts Bush's neck in the noose, it had better be a pretty long rope to wrap around their collective necks.

 

[jonks]

And yet another incident perfectly illustrating the habitual LYING of the current administration (sorry to plagiarize harvey but without the caps it doesn't do it justice.)

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/...no-bush-didnt-torture/

Cliffs:
- Multitude of experts classify waterboarding as torture including McCain, Ridge, and JAG.
- Bush admin ADMITS it has waterboarded at least 3 prisoners for information.

That's only 2 steps but let's recap anyway:
1. waterboarding is torture
2. Bush had people waterboarded

So obviously this can only lead to the conclusion that Bush has NOT had anyone tortured.

Wait, what? Yep. Welcome to logic in Bushworld.

Adios mf'er.

 

[Atheus]

Bush admin not likely to be charged with war crimes

Yea no shit. How could that possibly happen? In most wars (WWII excluded) both sides are just as bad as eachother, but it's the one who's left with the money and the power at the end who makes the prosecutions, and writes the history books for that matter.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Difficult for a sitting congress to charge the nations executive with war crimes for a war they willfully continued to fund.....isnt it?

Indeed. If Congress puts Bush's neck in the noose, it had better be a pretty long rope to wrap around their collective necks.

Agreed. If BushCo were charged for war crimes in the Iraq war matter, 99% of the senate should rightfully be charged as accesories. Aint gonna happen.

 

[Nemesis 1]

If America lost the war. You be surprized whoed be on trail for war crimes. Depends on ones point of view. I think after the G7 meeting your all going to precieve things differantly.

 

[Eric62]

Obama's not my boy, but I believe he will take actions some of you limp wristed liberals will object to - such as cross border incursions into Pakistan, and perhaps an all out attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Oh, and he won't be making an immediate unilateral withdrawal from Iraq - lol. General Petraeus has stabilized that country and Obama won't undermine that progress - despite his campaign rhetoric.
So what are the peace at any price pukes gonna do then? Campaign for Jeb Bush in 2012 - Bwahahaha...
Obama didn't make it through the grueling campaign process just to be a left wing lackey. He'll kick some ass Islamic ass when duty calls. I'm more concerned with his handling of Putin. That cold blooded KGB honkey mofo can appear to be rational, but he wants the Red army to rise again to glory. Will our #1 NIC see it coming, and respond forcefully???
I'm a Republican that's optimistic about Obama. He was able to sweet talk the majority of the American electorate, hopefully he can do the same with our enemies.

 

[mxyzptlk]

LOL @ Referring to Obama as HNIC!

It totally fits, and I'm going to be using that from now on.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: XMan
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/15707">Asked this weekend during a Vermont Public Radio interview if Bush administration officials would face war crimes, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy flatly said, "In the United States, no."

"These things are not going to happen," said Leahy, D-Vt.
</a>

In other news, Harvey's head just exploded.

In all seriousness, this to me is kind of a "well, duh" story that's not likely to be received very well by the Code Pink crowd as it unfolds. Charging Bush with crimes would set a bad precedent that would give any future President serious pause in using military force to defend the nation. Not to mention opening up a whole can of worms for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden survivors and our descendents, or, more similarly, to Japanese-Americans interned during WW2.

Why is having a serious pause before using military force a bad thing? BTW - we needed no defending from Iraq, just in case you have been in a cave as long as Bin Laden and I'm not a member of the charge Bush with war crimes club either.