|
Post by honkybouffant on Jun 12, 2011 18:34:40 GMT -6
Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor in the trial of Charles Manson, has written a book titled 'The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder'. The case is based on the claim that Bush led the nation to war under false pretenses, and thus thousands of people were killed in bombing sorties and other military actions that would otherwise have lived.
According to figures from the venerable medical journal 'The Lancet', the excess of deaths caused by the Iraq war - that's to say, the number of deaths over those projected had Saddam stayed in power - was 655,000. To give you an idea of that, suppose that Bugliosi's most famous prosecution, Charles Manson, were to go on a killing rampage murdering 1 person per day. It would take him over 1794 years to catch up with Dubya's total circa 2006.
My question is not whether Bugliosi is wrong or right. My question is, if he is right, should Dubya get the death penalty?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jun 12, 2011 18:37:53 GMT -6
Well - I'm personally opposed to the death penalty, but a prosecution of everyone involved in the decisions around the war is definitely in order.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jun 12, 2011 18:39:45 GMT -6
Well - I'm personally opposed to the death penalty, but a prosecution of everyone involved in the decisions around the war is definitely in order. I admire the fact that you are remaining true to your anti stance, even though in this case we are talking about someone responsible for the deaths of over half a million civilians.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Jun 13, 2011 8:03:00 GMT -6
No, because going into war and making a declaration of law is legal, whereas murder isn't legal.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 13, 2011 9:12:23 GMT -6
No, because going into war and making a declaration of law is legal, whereas murder isn't legal. Gee, somehow I already know how Honk would counter this statement.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jun 13, 2011 9:44:14 GMT -6
My question is not whether Bugliosi is wrong or right. My question is, if he is right, should Dubya get the death penalty? Well, hypothetically, if Bugliosi is right, then I am assuming Bush would be charged with war crimes (correct me if I am wrong), and are war crimes punishable by death? If the answer is yes to the above two questions, then instead of should he get the death penalty, will change to he will get the death penalty. If the answer is no, then he goes on living his life.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jun 13, 2011 15:19:45 GMT -6
No, because going into war and making a declaration of law is legal, whereas murder isn't legal. Gee, somehow I already know how Honk would counter this statement. Do I say "Bush made a declaration of war? Who knew?" or something like that?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jun 13, 2011 15:23:02 GMT -6
My question is not whether Bugliosi is wrong or right. My question is, if he is right, should Dubya get the death penalty? Well, hypothetically, if Bugliosi is right, then I am assuming Bush would be charged with war crimes (correct me if I am wrong), and are war crimes punishable by death? Well I don't know whether he would be punished for war crimes since there was technically no war. Bugliosi suggests he should be prosecuted for murder. I know Henry Kissinger once said that the acts of statesmen should not be judged the same way as the acts of ordinary folks. I'm wondering if the 'no exceptions' people agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jun 13, 2011 16:09:04 GMT -6
Well I don't know whether he would be punished for war crimes since there was technically no war. But didn't he go ahead with the war despite proper protocol? He needed nine affirmative votes to go ahead with the war, but only got four. Even Kofi Annan, a UN member, said the war was illegal. I think that would be punishable under war crimes. Okay. So if Bugliosi is right and that Bush is a murderer, and he is saying that he should be charged with murder, and not war crimes, then yes. If the crime is punishable by death, then she should serve his punishment. Realistically, that would never happen. He wouldn't even have a trial. He wouldn't even go to prison. So it doesn't really matter.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jun 14, 2011 1:32:52 GMT -6
Well I don't know whether he would be punished for war crimes since there was technically no war. But didn't he go ahead with the war despite proper protocol? He needed nine affirmative votes to go ahead with the war, but only got four. Even Kofi Annan, a UN member, said the war was illegal. I think that would be punishable under war crimes. Yes you are probably right. In fact I believe that Bugliosi's case for murder is based in part on the fact that the war was illegal. She? According to Kissinger's argument, statesmen often have to choose between evils. In Bush's case, he would claim that if he went ahead with the illegal war, people would die. But if he didn't, then maybe people would die then too. So he was in a bind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2011 1:43:58 GMT -6
Well - I'm personally opposed to the death penalty, but a prosecution of everyone involved in the decisions around the war is definitely in order. I admire the fact that you are remaining true to your anti stance, even though in this case we are talking about someone responsible for the deaths of over half a million civilians. But they weren't Americans so do they count?
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jun 14, 2011 9:24:37 GMT -6
Sorry. I mean't he. Thanks for pointing out my error. I hope my argument still gets across despite my misuse of the proper pronoun. I would agree with Kissinger's argument about state officials being in a bind, however, the name associated with those attacks was always Osama Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein. If Bush just went after Osama, I could maybe see the argument, but since he invaded Iraq, he really wasn't in a bind then because how many soldiers died looking for a person who wasn't responsible for 9/11?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jun 14, 2011 13:59:05 GMT -6
Sorry. I mean't he. Thanks for pointing out my error. I hope my argument still gets across despite my misuse of the proper pronoun. I would agree with Kissinger's argument about state officials being in a bind, however, the name associated with those attacks was always Osama Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein. If Bush just went after Osama, I could maybe see the argument, but since he invaded Iraq, he really wasn't in a bind then because how many soldiers died looking for a person who wasn't responsible for 9/11? It's funny you only mentioned the soldiers. You kinda make Kita's point. But to be fair to Bush, if he hadn't invaded Iraq, he would risk leaving America's energy security in the hands of a madman. So though 911 was no excuse for the attack, you could argue that he had good reasons, no? Also, Bush could argue that Saddam was a murderer, and murderers must be brought to justice even if innocents have to die to make that happen. It's just like the DP. You risk killing innocents in order to ensure that they right guy tastes some bitter justice.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jun 14, 2011 17:33:12 GMT -6
It's funny you only mentioned the soldiers. You kinda make Kita's point. I would have mentioned all the other innocent Iraq citizens killed, but I have a funny feeling that some American's don't care for them as much. I mean, they even call their own Muslim citizens who have done nothing wrong horrible names, and associate them with terrorists as well. If he wanted to go after Hussein, he should have said so. Not hide under the 'let's get Osama Bin Laden' card. Like you said, he was a madman, surely the UN would agree with Bush that he needs to be taken out as well. That's a bull argument on Bush's behalf though. I mean, who was Hussein murdering? His own citizens? By that logic, Bush should have also went after Kim Jong Il, Joseph Kony, and any other person who does not subscribe to the American way of life.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jun 14, 2011 18:37:03 GMT -6
It's funny you only mentioned the soldiers. You kinda make Kita's point. I would have mentioned all the other innocent Iraq citizens killed, but I have a funny feeling that some American's don't care for them as much. I mean, they even call their own Muslim citizens who have done nothing wrong horrible names, and associate them with terrorists as well. If he wanted to go after Hussein, he should have said so. Not hide under the 'let's get Osama Bin Laden' card. Like you said, he was a madman, surely the UN would agree with Bush that he needs to be taken out as well. That's a bull argument on Bush's behalf though. I mean, who was Hussein murdering? His own citizens? By that logic, Bush should have also went after Kim Jong Il, Joseph Kony, and any other person who does not subscribe to the American way of life. It sounds like it's not even hypothetical for you. You think Bush actually deserves to be tried and sentenced for murder.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jun 14, 2011 20:24:13 GMT -6
It sounds like it's not even hypothetical for you. You think Bush actually deserves to be tried and sentenced for murder. When did I say that? All I was saying that if Bugliosi's argument is true, then yes, he should be punished. Realistically, he won't.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jun 14, 2011 21:53:07 GMT -6
It sounds like it's not even hypothetical for you. You think Bush actually deserves to be tried and sentenced for murder. When did I say that? Your arguments seem to lean that way. It seems you think the war was illegal, that lots of people died in it. At the very least it seems you think Bush is guilty of negligent homicide on a massive scale. Whether or not he will, your arguments seem to imply that he should.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jun 15, 2011 9:15:47 GMT -6
Your arguments seem to lean that way. It seems you think the war was illegal, He went on with the war despite proper protocol. Does that make it illegal? If yes, then I would think the war is illegal. However Bush is charged with nothing as of today, so it isn't. Lots of people did die in it. There were a lot of soldier causalities as well as civilian causalities. At the very least, I think Bush should have followed proper protocol. Those were hypothetical arguments based on the hypothetical notion that Bush IS guilty of war crimes. Like I said earlier, if the answer is No to all the questions I stated, he goes on living his life. And by that I also meant not behind bars.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 15, 2011 10:02:39 GMT -6
Should Dubya get the DP?
What no court no nothing just say yes, or no to the DP for him? So he is guilty of murder?
How about all the key figures and deception? like "Congress ok'd it" Or false intellegence provided to to Gov by operative?
Reason I agree with Kissinger, some reasons they should not be judged the same way.
Although I do admit normally I do not like Kissinger, and that smirky grin of Bush either...
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jun 15, 2011 14:43:24 GMT -6
Well I don't know whether he would be punished for war crimes since there was technically no war. But didn't he go ahead with the war despite proper protocol? He needed nine affirmative votes to go ahead with the war, but only got four. Even Kofi Annan, a UN member, said the war was illegal. I think that would be punishable under war crimes. Okay. So if Bugliosi is right and that Bush is a murderer, and he is saying that he should be charged with murder, and not war crimes, then yes. If the crime is punishable by death, then she should serve his punishment. Realistically, that would never happen. He wouldn't even have a trial. He wouldn't even go to prison. So it doesn't really matter. I agree, realistically it wont happen just as it did'nt when Margarelt Tatcher ordered the sinking of the Argentinian training ship the Belgrano?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jun 15, 2011 15:59:34 GMT -6
Your arguments seem to lean that way. It seems you think the war was illegal, He went on with the war despite proper protocol. Does that make it illegal? If yes, then I would think the war is illegal. However Bush is charged with nothing as of today, so it isn't. Lots of people did die in it. There were a lot of soldier causalities as well as civilian causalities. At the very least, I think Bush should have followed proper protocol. Those were hypothetical arguments based on the hypothetical notion that Bush IS guilty of war crimes. Like I said earlier, if the answer is No to all the questions I stated, he goes on living his life. And by that I also meant not behind bars. Do you think he is blameworthy at all, or do you think that is a matter for the courts to decide?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jun 15, 2011 16:02:05 GMT -6
But didn't he go ahead with the war despite proper protocol? He needed nine affirmative votes to go ahead with the war, but only got four. Even Kofi Annan, a UN member, said the war was illegal. I think that would be punishable under war crimes. Okay. So if Bugliosi is right and that Bush is a murderer, and he is saying that he should be charged with murder, and not war crimes, then yes. If the crime is punishable by death, then she should serve his punishment. Realistically, that would never happen. He wouldn't even have a trial. He wouldn't even go to prison. So it doesn't really matter. I agree, realistically it wont happen just as it did'nt when Margarelt Tatcher ordered the sinking of the Argentinian training ship the Belgrano? You half agree. Lauren has no opinion on whether Bush committed a crime or not, only that if he did then he should be punished. But you definitely think Tatcher committed a crime, right?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Jun 15, 2011 16:06:38 GMT -6
Should Dubya get the DP? What no court no nothing just say yes, or no to the DP for him? So he is guilty of murder? The question is if he was found guilty of murder, should he get the dp? Or do you think that statesmen should not be held to account in the same way as ordinary folks (even though, if Bush did commit murder at all, then he committed mass murder.) So you believe that some murderers should not receive the dp. I don't blame him for smirking. If I was fooling 51% of the country and there was nothing the other 49% could do about it it would be hard not to smirk. Laugh even.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 15, 2011 19:13:54 GMT -6
Should Dubya get the DP? What no court no nothing just say yes, or no to the DP for him? So he is guilty of murder? The question is if he was found guilty of murder, should he get the dp? Or do you think that statesmen should not be held to account in the same way as ordinary folks (even though, if Bush did commit murder at all, then he committed mass murder.) If found guilty, and a resident of TX Yes..But No. LWOP To many to blame not just Bush, as I already stated. It would send a powerful message for future leaders. I also resent the media they too played a big role in why so many Americans, fooled were a good portion of the 51%, and left us like myself nothing I could do about it. I did not change my tune after, I felt that way immediately. So you believe that some murderers should not receive the dp. Yes, so do our present laws... I don't blame him for smirking. If I was fooling 51% of the country and there was nothing the other 49% could do about it it would be hard not to smirk. Laugh even. Everytime he had his smirky grin, I felt the urge to slap the chit out of him.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jun 15, 2011 22:10:03 GMT -6
Do you think he is blameworthy at all, or do you think that is a matter for the courts to decide? If he truly committed a crime, he would have been punished by now, so I guess in the eyes of the law he has done nothing wrong. At least for now, anyway. Personally, I don't know what to think. I could argue on both sides for this war, on whether it was legal or illegal. However, hypothetically, if it did turn out to be an illegal war, and Bush did get punished, I would support whatever punishment he got.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Jun 17, 2011 11:25:47 GMT -6
What you should do Honkey.... is hold your breath... untill the prosecution of our 43rd twice elected president is being looked at by any one but Anti American nut cases like yourself.... You'll be known as "blue Honkey"....for a while ;D Whoaaaa, stop Honkey...I was just kidding Damn I'm glad we're not depending on folks like Honkey to defend America.... We'd all be speaking German.....long ago.
|
|
|
Post by yasgursfarm on Jun 17, 2011 11:49:14 GMT -6
Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor in the trial of Charles Manson, has written a book titled 'The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder'. The case is based on the claim that Bush led the nation to war under false pretenses, and thus thousands of people were killed in bombing sorties and other military actions that would otherwise have lived. According to figures from the venerable medical journal 'The Lancet', the excess of deaths caused by the Iraq war - that's to say, the number of deaths over those projected had Saddam stayed in power - was 655,000. To give you an idea of that, suppose that Bugliosi's most famous prosecution, Charles Manson, were to go on a killing rampage murdering 1 person per day. It would take him over 1794 years to catch up with Dubya's total circa 2006. My question is not whether Bugliosi is wrong or right. My question is, if he is right, should Dubya get the death penalty? That's the concept I have been looking for: "Excess Deaths". I wonder how many 'excess deaths' were caused by WWII.
|
|
|
Post by yasgursfarm on Jun 17, 2011 11:55:32 GMT -6
Well, hypothetically, if Bugliosi is right, then I am assuming Bush would be charged with war crimes (correct me if I am wrong), and are war crimes punishable by death? Well I don't know whether he would be punished for war crimes since there was technically no war. Bugliosi suggests he should be prosecuted for murder. I know Henry Kissinger once said that the acts of statesmen should not be judged the same way as the acts of ordinary folks. I'm wondering if the 'no exceptions' people agree with that. Prosecute him for abuse of power then. "The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse" Edmund Burke.
|
|
|
Post by olivebranch on Jun 17, 2011 16:43:22 GMT -6
While I feel that Bush is perhaps the greatest criminal in history and is guilty of millions of murders I still am against the death penalty, even for him.
However, he does need to be brought to justice. Life in solitary confinement in an Iraqi prison would do Bush good.
Punishing all those responsible for the Iraq war is one of the things we must do in order to restore our country's honor along with slavery reparations, open borders, increasing the teaching of tolerance and acceptance of others in our school systems and complete abolition of the death penalty
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jun 17, 2011 18:59:27 GMT -6
Olive Oyl, you're a moron. While I feel that Bush is perhaps the greatest criminal in history and is guilty of millions of murders I still am against the death penalty, even for him. However, he does need to be brought to justice. Life in solitary confinement in an Iraqi prison would do Bush good. Punishing all those responsible for the Iraq war is one of the things we must do in order to restore our country's honor along with slavery reparations, open borders, increasing the teaching of tolerance and acceptance of others in our school systems and complete abolition of the death penalty
|
|