One more comparison would seem fair in that Bush is like O.J. Simpson-he is getting away with murder. At least Manson is behind bars paying for his crimes. The religious comment about man shall not kill mankind and there is another quote from the good book that goes something like this “an eye for an eye” and it would be the right to follow all the guidelines of the good book.

Shelley

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished – unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”

Voltaire

Here’s the essence of the case. Bush received a National Intelligence Estimate in very early October 2002. The findings included these two paragraphs:

“Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks–more likely with biological than chemical agents–probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.” http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html

Paragraph 1 makes clear that the evidence Bush used, the evidence produced by all intelligence contributors, said Saddam was not an imminent threat to the U.S. But there’s more.

Paragraph 2 is the slam dunk. Under what conditions would Saddam be a threat? If Hussein “feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable.” So, the scenario that produced a threat of Iraqi violence against the U.S. was exactly what the president proposed – threatening his survival by attacking the regime.

Bush deleted this material and skewed the material released to make it appear that we attacked due to an imminent threat. Case closed. He’s guilty. You can argue the legitimacy of the law but you can’t argue that this logic flows from the law. It does.

This is the one action on the table that restores responsibility and protections of a fundamental nature to citizens. Any local prosecutor in a legal district where a life was lost as a result of the Bush lies can bring a case against Bush, 1st or 2nd degree murder. That’s radical in that it places the life of one or several citizens above the ‘real politic’ needs/desires of a president to lie us into war. The federal authorities cannot stop this. The state court system can but there are 50 states. Surely one would conduct the necessary legal action. What would the federal government do? What would the power brokers do?

With regard to responsibility of citizens for this war, two points. The populace opposed the war without prior inspections, thorough and complete. Both Republicans and Democrats hit above 60% on this. Then the lies started. The lies, my second point, are powerful and pervasive. It’s always important to understand how complete the lock down on real information is. Bad information results in bad decisions. I didn’t believe “them” and many others were in total disbelief but we’re not typical. The public assumes that that when the media, even the “liberal” New York Times trumpets WMD non stop for weeks, months, then it must be true.

I offered my thoughts on the “us” versus “them” question and the inadvisability and inaccuracy of taking the blame for the idiocy of the “rulers” when they control the distribution of information.

The Money Party (5): “Us” versus “Them”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00402.htm

cg, nice list of serial killers. Would Charles Whitman be eligible, the UT tower shooter? Your article is a Swiftian delight but hardly absolves Manson of ordering horrible murders. It’s called “conspiracy to commit murder,” much like others who order actions that they know, without any doubt, will result in deaths.

http://framingbusiness.net/2006/debunking-myths-surrounding-charles-manson/

…on Kennedy (http://tinyurl.com/5dd7fh) or Manson. (http://tinyurl.com/5c5fr6)

How well do we proletarian slugs really understand of the resources that the powers-that-be pour into their relentless war of propaganda against? When people write or speak about titanic military-industrial complex– to what extent do they recall that its objectives include “full spectrum dominance”– including the battle for our opinions?

George Carlin put things particularly well: Distrust the consensus whatever it is. (http://tinyurl.com/yuplyr)

I also think that the greater issue of unleashing the horrors of war outside of the bounds of defense and international and Federal law makes his crime about humanity not simply about the deaths of American soldiers. This is not simply abut the mothers and fathers of Americans but about the very essence of humanity and its universiality.

The US waged war, not simply George W. Bush. Let’s not forget that. We have another pair of POTUS candidates at the ready to repeat and sustain that act against humanity. Killing at 10, 000 feet is still murder.

Yes, a President can prosecute a war. The point isn’t the prosectuion of a war, it is the basis for which that war was waged. War crimes are the issue at hand. In that matter the President of the US has no greater powers under the law, both Federal and International, than Mugaba, Saddam Hussain, Pinochet, etc.

Under the UN Charter it is apparent the US has committed war crimes.

The problem, Danny, is as you may be saying, that “murder” in the civilian case of a Charles Manson, may not be appropriate or even feasible for a POTUS or even former POTUS.

What is called for is a tribunal. Whether that can be ordered through the American Judicial system or whether the International Court can be formally requested to pursue has it has with other “leaders” who have been alleged to commit war crimes or genocide is the real. I’m not clear on how best to initiate that action.

In the case of Bush et al., it was much more important that he be tried for treason and impeached, because the lack of this has created such a dangerous precedent.