Show me the section of the statute that I linked where motive is one of the elements of murder.

You can’t b/c it’s not there.

Motive is not an element necessary to prove murder. Wrongful intent with a concurrent wrongful act is sufficient to prove murder. I don’t see motive in that formula, do you? Premeditation can be done over several seconds or months or longer. You don’t need any motive proven to prove murder…unless you wish to count the intent to kill as the motive for murder. I won’t split semantic hairs with you. Suffice it to say, motive is not an element of statutory murder.

Since you don’t take my citations or words for it, type into a search engine the words “murder” “prove motive” and get back to me on the results.

As far as the Sen. Int. Committee’s recent report, I’ll go you one better. I will pretend that Bush did not fudge the actual reports. I think he did. But I’ll assume that all the reports he cited were 100% supportive of his claims.

He still lied.

He presented only that intelligence which supported his fantasy that Iraq was a grave threat to the US. Never did he or his administration present the evidence that Iraq was not a threat to the US. His was a constant drumbeat of war.

An omission of countervailing information is still a lie.

Not only that but Bush lied about the NIE White Paper conclusion that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US and Iraq would only attack us in self-defense. Bush lied about that in his October national address from Cincinnati.
This is all you have to prove in a murder one case: The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The wrongful mind must be concurrent with the wrongful act.

Bush’s omissions and outright lies about the evidence are sufficient to show that he ordered the invasion under false pretenses and that the deaths resulting from that invasion were murder b/c there was no justifiable theory of self-defense on which he could rely. Bush lied about the threat posed by Iraq therefore he could not have reasonably believed Iraq was a threat to the US therefore the invasion was an unjustified use of force and the killings….murder.

Why did Bush cut off the WMD inspections? If he was so concerned about disarmament, why did he stop the disarmament inspections before they were done?

Here’re your pertinent sections: UN Charter Article 51 provides: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs…." Article 39 provides: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." The United Nations Charter is a binding international treaty to which the United States is a party.

Resolution 1441 provides no new authorization for using force. If it does, could you point out that provision to me?

…Security Council resolutions are mandates upon parties and must be respected with or without their consent. They are enforced, modified, or terminated by the Security Council, not by states in general. Neither the explicit terms of the UN Charter nor the practice of the Security Council supports any other interpretation. Under the UN Charter, states may only use force in individual or collective self-defense in the face of an armed attack or with the authorization of the Security Council when the Council finds a threat or breach of international peace. Thus, without Security Council authorization, states do not have the right to use force to enforce the Council's resolutions…
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php
Which part of part of third party innocent agent are you misunderstanding?

Bush’s crime started with his lies about Iraq’s threat and the necessity to address that invisible threat, it continued with his ordering of the unnecessary invasion and finished with the resulting deaths. Bush knew those men would die.

The Iraqis were just defending themselves from attack. Bush used the Iraqis to kill our soldiers as sure as if he picked up a gun and shot them himself.

Your objection that the Iraqis were not agents of the president is noted but as I’ve shown, you’re missing the mark. The Manson case was used to show that a murderer does not have to kill anyone personally to be charged with murder. Bush set into motion a series of events that would result in the deaths of American soldiers.

He lied about the threat of Iraq to us, he ordered the invasion without justification, he knew that his actions would result in the deaths of our servicemen at the hands of Iraqi citizens defending themselves from the US onslaught.
Your objections are lacking in facts and law. Like it or not, Iraq was a sovereign country that was attacked, without reason, by the US. The self-defense theory of the Iraqis is iron-clad.
Please provide me the declaration of war by Congress.

Good luck. There isn’t one.

There is a statute that can allow for an ex-president to be charged for illegal killings that he arranged and made possible. It’s called a murder statute.

Clinton is irrelevant to this topic. His was a case of pardon. If you want a textbook example of that, I suggest you look at GHW Bush’s pardons of the treasonous Iran/Contra figures who could have implicated Bush in treason. I believe that pardon occurred on Christmas Eve. What gifts those were.

Now you’re mixing evidentiary claims with your legal arguments. Bush’s motive for killing is irrelevant. Bugliosi can prove Bush's intent to kill through circumstantial evidence of his statements (lies about Iraq’s threat to US) and actions (ordering the invasion putatively for disarming a threatening Iraq) contrary to the findings of the WMD inspectors (Iraq was largely disarmed and was not an imminent threat to the US).

The special prosecutor law was abolished.

The votes aren’t there b/c of recalcitrant corrupt republicans and a few democrats. The prosecution doesn’t require any more documents than it already has.

I like debating you. But do aren’t a very civil person when you respond or is that just how you normally treat strangers at a political forum?

The mere idea of Afghanistan being a threat is still laughable of its face. They didn't do 9/11, Al Queda did.

You're the one talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are berating Decker for caring about Iraqis.

Here's your earlier post berating him for NOT caring about Iraqis.

Do you care about, believe in what you write?

Decker when you mouth innanities, like motive doesn't equal intent, nobody is going to take you seriously. Bugliosi is a money grubbing publicity hound and not one major media publication has deemed his book worthy of review. You say Bush lied. The Senate INtelligence Committee report states the statements made by the admin. were substantially backed by the available intelligence. In simple terms you can understand, they are saying, he didn't lie. Now if they say he didn't lie, and they had the chance to review the intelligence that wasn't released, then that shoots your whole theory thathe lied to hell. Once that report is read into evidence, it creates the benefit of the doubt that he had any malice towards his troops. He was protecting the nation, as is his duty under Article II.
If you don't like the tone of my posts, then you don't belong on a political board. Politics is down and dirty. Get used to it or leave.

Did you google "murder 'prove motive'"? You still haven't backed up your point with anything but insults.

So you're throwing in the towel by calling a credible, honest man names. Did you read the book?

Let's assume that the SIC is correct and the available intelligence was also not fixed by Bush and company.

Do you understand what 'cherrypicking' information means? Do you acknowledge that an omission can also be a lie?

Do you see why Bush's drumbeat for war can be consistent with the findings of the SIC while still characterized as lying b/c he omitted ALL countervailing evidence in his national addresses?

Do you see why Bush is a liar a hundred times over?


See the above b/c he lied his sack off and sent men to their deaths based on those lies.

Are you a politician? Then shut up about the down and dirty nature of politics and behave like a man.

Credible? you call youself credible? You deny facts. You propogate falsehoods. Why would you think you're credible? Bugliosi's premise is not credible. He presents a theory that you have glommed onto without any court precedent. The only trials of this type were Nuremburg and Milosovic. Milosvic outlasted 4 years of fumbling around by the Hague. Nuremburg was a military tribunal.
Your probable cause is weak and you facts are skewed. You can't prove malice unless you get witnesses to have first hand knowledge of comments from the pres. Or if you get him to waive his 5th Amendment privilege. Good luck. Otherwise, he was conducting lawful military operations as approved by Congress.
It's been good fun, but it won't get past the speculating phase.

You said there was no declaration of War? Under the War Powers Act of 1973, this serves the purpose. http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terr...jres23.es.html

As usual, you see what you want to see. I am credible but if you read my comment, I said Bugliosi is credible. He's the author whose work we are discussing.

Which facts have I denied? I've denied your assertion that motive is an element of the crime of murder b/c you are summarily wrong on that.

No I don't. You're the one running around with the notion that motive is an element of murder. The only proof you provide is your word. That's not good enough.

I'm credible b/c I try to be faithful to Bugliosi's book and I tell the truth.

I wish I could say the same about you and your 'motive is an element of murder' routine.

Maybe you just aren't reading my comments closely enough. This is a case of first impression. There is no case law. This happens all the time in law. If you were versed in legal studies, you'd know this.

Again, you don't read my posts. I stated clearly that Bugliosi dismisses war crimes charges b/c that's governed by International Law. Charging Bush with murder is a USA venture.

Bugliosi proves 'malice aforethought', aka intent, quite easily through circumstantial evidence. If Bush sends soldiers into a meat grinder in Iraq, under false pretenses, he intended to kill them. A ground invasion with no US fatalities is preposterous on its face.

Do you see that? Do you understand why your objection is not relevant? Do you also understand that if Bush did not take the stand, he'd look even worse?

This is a political forum concerned with beliefs and opinions. We discuss things. We speculate. We indict the president for murder b/c he's a butcher whose ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of people based on false pretenses.

Delcaring war on another country is not the same thing as the president exercising a use of force under the War Powers Resolution.

As I said, the US never declared war on Iraq under Article 1 sec. 8 of the constitution. Never happened.
Do you know why?

Why didn't Bush declare war?

Did Congress declare war on Vietnam? Panama? Grenada? Korea? No. They approved use of force by other means. Are you going to take Congress to court for illegally approve the use of force? And I'll still contend Bugliosi isn't credible with the theories he's using to suppot his call for prosection. You haven't proven malice. The pres. doesn't have to present any or all contrevening evidence to Congress. It's not a court of law where there is discovery. What you don't know and can't prove is what confidential intelligence was presented to the House and Senate intelligence committees. What also goes agaist your case, and I'll say it again, is that the Senate intelligence committee's report that was just released stated that all the statements made by the pres. were substantially supported on available intelligence. Based on that, you have reasonable doubt to thwart any charge you want to present.

What I have seen in reading several interviews of Bugliosi is that he's obsessed with the pres. to the point of mental illness. If I were the Secret Service, he'd be on my watch list.