I realise this is not likely to happen, but I love to imagine that it does.

Might be because he covered his arse like the coward he is?

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

Public thanks to Catzmeow for enabling me to make my goal of half a million credits by Xmas.

I agree that President Bush should be brought up on charges of some kind, but I don't think murder is the correct charge. If that were the case, then every president that has ever ordered soldiers into any conflict ever would be liable for murder. In that case, the President could never commit troops to anything, since he knowingly would send some troops to their death.

You may then claim that other incidents are acts of self-defense. Then, if the president commits troops to a conflict in the name of self defense, then it is not murder. Fair enough. But what about Peace Keeping Operations, or to save lives. By your standard, if a president were to send troops to Kosovo, or Sudan, or anywhere else to stop a genocide, he would not strictly be acting on self-defense. And thus, humanitarian efforts, by your standard, would be tantamount to murder.

__________________
A [person] has a property in [their] opinions and the free communication of them. -James Madison

So strong is this propensity of [humanity] to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts -James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10

James Madison for President -White Fox

I don't think murder charges brought against Bush would result in some slippery slope that would wrongly affect future or past presidents.

George Bush used methodical fraud and deception to take the US to war with Iraq. He employed false pretenses.

This simple fact of the president's fraud distinguishes Bush's behavior from that of a law abiding president.

If the president did commit troops to the Sudan or Kosovo under the reasonable belief that ethnic cleansing/genocide was happening, that would be a textbook definition of Self defense of another. Therefore legitimate humanitarian efforts on the US's part would never be considered murder.

I just think that the murder charges would not stick. I think violation of the Geneva Convention would be a better charge.

Still, the problem remains of who would bring up the charges, and who would enforce them. I don't see how this would happen, considering that the U.S. never ratified the ICC.

__________________
A [person] has a property in [their] opinions and the free communication of them. -James Madison

So strong is this propensity of [humanity] to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts -James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10

James Madison for President -White Fox

Bugliosi addresses the plausibility of charges under international law (war crimes/crimes against humanity). Although I haven't gotten to that part of the book, he is not enamored of that measure.

The charge of intentional murder against Bush could be brought by any DA or atty gen. in the country b/c every state in the country has had solidiers killed by Bush's invasion.

The ICC is for international law and the US is #1 on the docket for war crimes when Reagan had a nicaraguan harbor mined. That's why we don't acknowlege the court's jurisdiction.

With a murder charge, our Federal Courts would be the likely spot for the trial.

Hey, Lavey, why don't you junk that fake picture in your avatar and replace it with a real ficture of Ahmadinejad, below:

__________________
"Should'a never taken Willoughby out."

This such a purposterous argument this guy makes and it is one side his defense for bush in this joke of a trial is so fake. no president will ever go to trial for something like this. keep dreaming.

Every great movement begins with an idea.

I'm glad to see that you took the time to elaborate on why your reasons for why a murder charge would fail.

first he has no intent on soliders dying even if he knew it would happen he isn't killing them. second we would have to go back and try Lincoln and many others it is just so stupid and not even worth debating.

Thanks for answering.

Bush absolutely knew that soldiers would die in his war. Unless Bush intended to have a war without any casualties, which is nonsensical on its face, he did in fact, specifically intend to have American soldiers killed.

As for your second point that Bush did not kill the soldiers, that's an understandable objection. Consider this:

"...it is not necessary for a criminal defendant to have physically committed a murder to be guilty of it. For example, I (Bugliosi) convicted Charles Manson of the seven Tate-La Bianca murders even though he himself did not participate in any of the killings, nor was he present at the time."

The soliers in Iraq are not murderers b/c they lack the requisite intent. The Iraqis are also not murders b/c they are acting with legally justifiable self defense from the attacking invaders.

Bush, with his drive to war under false pretenses, is responsible for the deaths of those american soldiers. The people that killed those soldiers are merely instrumentalities of Bush's design to send american soldiers to die in an unjustified/manufactured war.

Why would LIncoln be tried for murder? He didn't manufacture evidence and lie to create a war...did he?