(If we assume that Bob = someone who was already a member of the military,) the analogy would be more accurate if Joe said "Bob, if you disobey my orders to break in, I'm going to send people to kidnap you and throw you in prison for a few years."
I don't see how this could be a proper analogy. the military doesn't "decide" to go after a person/country, they are SENT there.
While the military people do have SOME choice, it's really, really limited. And even if there were no evidence shown to them, that wouldn't have made any difference to the military - they go where they are sent to, not where they're convinced to go.The commander does not reason his orders to the troops - it's not a discussion club.
In Joe and Bob's situation, the most you could prosecute Joe for would be incitement to commit a crime, not murder. I think the case against Bush is actually stronger than the case against Joe for a variety of reasons. Bob is a completely autonomous human who could have told Joe to go to hell and peacefully resolved the issue with Tom. The military, on the other hand, has no choice but to obey orders from the higher-ups. In that sense, the military was just an appendage of Bush.
@parkj238 I don't like the phrase 'somewhat responsible' for a couple of reasons. One, it appears Loughner didn't really listen to Palin. Two, even if he did, millions of people listen to her, the rest of them don't go out and kill people. I think she showed poor judgment and a real lack of class and she should be shamed for both, but to suggest responsibility goes way too far. I see both Bush, and Buggliosi's thought experiment as rather different.
Joe should not be held responsible for Bob's death. Bob is responsible for his own death because by breaking into Tom's house with a gun he was displaying aggression and hostility. Thereby, allowing Tom to take Bob's life in self defense.
Joe told Bob only to confront Tom, and gave him a gun. However, Bob didn't need to break into Tom's house in order to confront him, nor did he need to bring the gun with him. By choosing the violent and aggressive option Bob is responsible for his own death.
Presidents being war criminals is nothing new. Obama will most likely be a war criminal in the future, and there is no telling on what really goes on in reality, because the mainstream media is so bad. Bush should be tried, because he was a criminal,as all the other people who played a role in sending 4000+ troops to die, for an unjust war.Ever since 9/11, more the 2 million citizens have died, or have been injured in the middle east. Also, there could be more with all the private military.
I think Bush should be held accountable, but I don't understand the use of the gun in the analogy. I would assume it is representing the military force you talk about, but the military already had these before Bush decided to go to war w/ Iraq. I think he can't be implicated on that level for the individual deaths since his actions were more along the lines of "Bob you should use YOUR gun to confront Tom," but you can also multiply the consequences (the number of innocent deaths) astronomically.
(cont'd) I'm actually not sure, though, because the members of the military don't have the ability to rebel against him on an individual basis and don't have the organization (or, i fear, the desire) to do so as a group, so they are, in a sense, forced to commit murder on his behalf. What do you think about this, Sisyphus?
Joe might be 'morally' responsible for Bob's death, but certainly not legally responsible. Bob should have done his own independent research on the information given to him by Bob before acting on that information.
Analogizing this to Bush doesn't work because Bush gave the orders with the appropriate authority whereas Joe only sparked an emotional response without any authority.
@VirgilFoxMusic "Bush gave the orders with the appropriate authority"
How does our being stupid enough to give him the authority to perform this action absolve him of responsibility? It's true Bob should have done his research, but Joe essentially gave him the greenlight to confront Tom. And certainly, if he gives him the actual implement that would lead to Tom's demise (which was ironically used against him), he is responsible for his death.
@VirgilFoxMusic I would say if Joe merely gave him the facts and didn't give him the gun (or suggest coming in with deadly force) and Bob still tried to kill Tom, then Joe should go free. This fucks with my views on utilitarianism (Bob dies regardless of Joe's intentions), but i'll go with virtue ethics in this situation since i'd rather be confused than a fundementalist. Actually, I love fundementalism in terms of objective ethics, but the justification has to be there.
@synchronium24 Exactly. Being a meddling shit stirrer doesn't necessarily give someone the foresight to see what their words might cause someone else to do. I think this one is quite straight forward and it scares me that anyone would consider holding the messenger accountable for someone else's arguably unpredictable action. That would be absurd.
@synchronium24 Well, I didn't really want to talk specifically about Bush as I don't know enough about the subject. I only wanted to point out that the analogy used in the video is not really appropriate.
It's possible that Blair will be prosecuted for war crimes as a result of evidence given at the Chilcott enquiry. Unlikely, but possible.
If Blair goes down, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the neocons are likely to follow. Those bastards are so proud of their duplicity the PNAC website still contains the smoking gun that 9/11 was at least LIHOP, if not MIHOP. Google for "PNAC primter" and feel your blood go cold when you read "new Pearl Harbor."
Bush did wrong even if the side example doesn't hold anyone responsible. Not only did Bush deceive the americans, he is the one ordering the troops, who more or less must follow his lead.
But it wouldn't stop there. Where would it stop? I'll grant you your assumptions, there would advisors to Bush, there were other politicians, especially in Congress. Would we need to put the entire government on trial? Bush would not be the only morally responsible person, but you speak as if Bush should be the only person. If we do this, we should get everyone who is involved, whether in office or not, but that kind of undertaking would make things difficult and there would be a lot of delay.
Bugliosi talks about this. He views it like a crime syndicate. He's convinced that if we prosecute Bush and Cheney, they'll roll on others.
As for Congress, I doubt the average member of Congress would hold much criminal responsibility. They were lied to, and they didn't actually vote to go to war, they only voted to give him the authority. At worst, it was a horrible lapse of judgment. Perhaps certain individual members are more responsible, but not Congress as a whole.
Joe would be responsible. He initiated a hostile situation based on lies, and setup the environment by hading Bob a gun and convincing him to break into his house to confront him. He would be charged with attempt to commit Murder 1 and committing Murder 2. While he didn't pull the trigger, had he not made the photos, spread the lie, hand over the gun and sent Bob into the house, both people would be alive.
Baced on just that, no. But in a real situation I'd wont to know more about what happened in that house. If Tom got the drop on Bob and Bob surendered then it would have been wrong of Tom to shoot Bob in cold blood. On the other hand if there was a shoot out then fair enough.
I didn't get the enalergy straght away so thanks for explaining. I have to agree with you but I don't see that happening.
Well, you're probably right that he will never be prosecuted (sadly, IMO), but that has more to do with power politics, rather than moral/legal (lack of) guilt.
But I'm not sure I buy your disanalogy. Soldiers choose to sign up; Bob chose to go to Tom's place and confront him. Soldiers decided to believe Bush and follow orders; Bob choose to believe Joe and took his gun. Choice doesn't seem to make a difference.
As for 'wrong reasons or not' illegal orders are void under UCMJ.
Bush should be held higher in that he was commander and cheif making up evidences which did not exist to gather together an army of people under his command to harm, destroy and kill other human beings whereas Joe and Bob dont have that kind of chain of command and neither did one command the other to do what was done. Joe and Bob dont fall under the UNlawful order deal that Bush would wouldnt you think?
The invasion of Iraq contravenes a number of provisions of the Geneva Conventions, as well as the Charter of the United Nations prohibiting wars of aggression; because Iraq did not attack the US or its allies. The soldiers in all countries which have signed those documents are obligated to refuse to carry out orders that contravene those agreements.
While Bush is the biggest war criminal here, the soldiers do have some reponsibility.
Not sure, but I don't think so. While there have perhaps been cases in the past where the president has fabricated evidence, lied and lead us into an unnecessary war that killed Americans, I don't think this is true of every American president.
I think Joe is morally responsible for deceiving Bob. I think Bob is morally responsible for killing Tom. Clearly Joe wanted this man dead, but he didn't kill him. It is Bob's fault for being so easily deceived (did Bob talk to Tom before killing him, or his wife?) Motivations are not will. Aside the analogy, Bush needs to be held accountable for something. Do I think he should be tried for murder? No, but perhaps something else (like not fulfilling the duties of his job description?)
I don't think 'not fulfilling the duties of your job' is a prosecutable offense. It might have been the basis for impeachment, but that ship has sailed. But surely there are other crimes he could be reasonably prosecuted for.
Right, and I meant he should be held 'accountable' for something else (not prosecuted by negligence; that is silly). The ship that sailed has crashed, and he was steering.. My point was that when you try someone for murder, the intent is to stop them from killing people. His method of "Murder" is being in any sort of position of power, so banishment from all politics would be a just punishment....
I was in the Marines during the Iraq war. In boot camp we were shown videos that tried to link Iraq to 9/11. I remember one video where they showed the towers as they were still bellowing smoke, and then Saddam Hussein's face materialized out of the smoke. I remember thinking that was a pretty bold move, considering that we had no evidence. It disturbed me a great deal that we were being misled like that, and I always remembered that video when I heard that one of my friends was killed.
My guess is that it didn't pass beyond the regiment level. Officers in the military are masters of their own kingdoms. As long as they produce results they answer to no one. The commanding officer of MCRD San Diego at the time that I was a recruit wasn't even a combat veteran. There were many training related deaths that year, one from my own platoon. It was obvious to a few of us that our CO was a rank amateur with a fascination for conservative politics. It disgusts me.
Great video overall, but I can never forgive you for one thing: I briefly thought of GWB as 'first among equals" when you noted than none are above the law.
But Bush was probably not fully aware that Saddam didn't have still usable WMD. Bush was most likely with blinders on the whole time, target vision and conformation bias made him keep his eyes on his paranoia, which was made easier by Saddam being a real POS human being, who btw was somehow still better than at least one of his sons.
And I've thought for years now that Saddam likely was just trying to keep Iran at bay.
It's possible he really did convince himself that Saddam had WMDs. Bugliosi argues that even if he did, there is still a legal framework for holding him accountable. The question is whether a 'reasonable person' would have looked at the evidence and been convinced.
I would argue that bob is ultimately responsible for his own death. just because someone gives you a gun and evidence of a social slight (adultery is not a crime) that does not give you the right to invade their property while armed in order to confront them. if someone gives you a bomb and a detonator are they responsible if you blow yourself up with it? Bush should probably be charged with something, but not under this rational. (to be clear i would not convict the our hypothetical guy)
I think you can admit that Bob is responsible, that he made a choice, and still hold Joe accountable, too. But if you wouldn't convict Joe, then the thought experiment will have no traction for you. Would you at least find him morally, if not legally, blameworthy?
Somehow I am more drawn to agree with the accomplished lawyer's conclusion regarding Joe's legal culpability for murder than the random dude on YouTube's denial of Joe's responsibility. It might have to do with knowledge of the law.
Sure, you can hold Joe accountable to a degree. Its accountability to the point of claiming he is guilty of murder that i cannot agree with. I will not say that he is %100 blameless.
I don't like to place blame on Joe because it sets a bad precedent in my mind. It tells people that if you blindly follow the suggestions of others, instead of thinking for yourselves, that we will blame them not you. that's the kind of thinking that got some Germans in trouble in the 40's.
understandable, but i think that according to the laws set up it would find joe guilty of manslaughter, and i think that for the sake of consistency presidents shouldn't be exempt from the same laws that fall over us.
You may be correct about his culpability according to the law. but i still dont think that the transfer from this scenario to what pres. bush did is justified. to many differences. as far as presidents being exempt from laws they already are to a degree. we kind of pick and choose which ones to enforce. its simple fact that the position shields the man. it may not be a legal fact but it is a practical one. judges are very wary of allowing cases against the president.
Well, isn't 'blindly following orders' sort of the military's job? I mean it's one thing if you're ordered to slaughter a group of children, that would be clearly an order they should refuse. But if your superior makes you believe X is a threat then surely you aren't responsible for following what to you looks like a perfectly moral and legal order, are you?
funny you should mention that as the fact that soldiers are expected to follow orders undermines your argument to a degree. the president does have a limited power to use the military as he wishes. his justifications for doing so need not even be revealed as far as i know. Does that make what he did correct. hardly. I simply do not think it opens him up to liability for murder.
btw i enjoy your video's and appreciate your viewpoint (don't think i have said that before)
He has the limited power to use the army as he wishes, but he doesn't have the power to fabricate evidence to drum up support for a war. That's a key part of his culpability. Obviously I'm not saying that any president who orders troops into combat wherein they die is guilty of murder.
Thanks for saying so. I appreciate the honest criticism.
In fact, refusing to follow orders means death or jail (ie google "Jail for soldier who refused deployment").
Article 90 of the UCMJ
Any person subject to this chapter who willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
The case for murder seems difficult to me, because these men aren't civilians like Bob, they are military members. Their occupation is defined by conflict and death. For the record, I did serve a four year tour in the Air Force from 2003 to 2007. If we accept the premises that he knew then surely we could get him for something, it just seems difficult to call it murder when a soldier dies in a war. I'd also like to see an untampered 9/11 inquiry.
Bugliosi speaks to that point. In short, he says that there's a long case history of prosecuting military officers for murder, and that would not provide much of a problem.
Bugliosi speaks to Cheney, saying that an investigation would no doubt uncover more damning evidence on him. He also says that Cheney is a man of such low character, so little spine, that he would cut a deal in no time.
"Murder"? George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes, torture, illegal write tapping, violating the Geneva Conventions relating to prisoners of war, and crimes against humanity. Murder would be a concession at best.
@mavaddat He can't be tried for war crimes. The US is not a party to the Rome statute, meaning no war crime or crime against humanity within in America or committed by Americans can be prosecuted. In fairness, the US isn't the only country not signed up. But it is the only one with a "Hague Invasion" act. Not enough proximity for murder, under English law at least. Nor for the torture - I don't think you could prove he directly ordered torture. Dunno about wire tapping.
@mavaddat Ultimately, it's not just Bush to blame. Sure, he was the figurehead, but how about blaming Congress for not ratifying the Rome statute? Or passing an Act that says they can use any means necessary to rescue Americans convicted of war crimes? Bush had his problems, sure, but the entire political system of the US is truly to blame for allowing America to get away with such breaches of international law. Don't feel too bad - China, India, Pakistan and many others hate the ICC too.
(If we assume that Bob = someone who was already a member of the military,) the analogy would be more accurate if Joe said "Bob, if you disobey my orders to break in, I'm going to send people to kidnap you and throw you in prison for a few years."
4iner2 4 months ago
I don't see how this could be a proper analogy. the military doesn't "decide" to go after a person/country, they are SENT there.
While the military people do have SOME choice, it's really, really limited. And even if there were no evidence shown to them, that wouldn't have made any difference to the military - they go where they are sent to, not where they're convinced to go.The commander does not reason his orders to the troops - it's not a discussion club.
So most of the guilt IS on Bush!
grozde 8 months ago
In Joe and Bob's situation, the most you could prosecute Joe for would be incitement to commit a crime, not murder. I think the case against Bush is actually stronger than the case against Joe for a variety of reasons. Bob is a completely autonomous human who could have told Joe to go to hell and peacefully resolved the issue with Tom. The military, on the other hand, has no choice but to obey orders from the higher-ups. In that sense, the military was just an appendage of Bush.
jetboyJ22 9 months ago
So do you think Sarah Palin is somewhat responsible for the Giffords massacre?
parkj238 1 year ago
@parkj238 I don't like the phrase 'somewhat responsible' for a couple of reasons. One, it appears Loughner didn't really listen to Palin. Two, even if he did, millions of people listen to her, the rest of them don't go out and kill people. I think she showed poor judgment and a real lack of class and she should be shamed for both, but to suggest responsibility goes way too far. I see both Bush, and Buggliosi's thought experiment as rather different.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Joe should not be held responsible for Bob's death. Bob is responsible for his own death because by breaking into Tom's house with a gun he was displaying aggression and hostility. Thereby, allowing Tom to take Bob's life in self defense.
Joe told Bob only to confront Tom, and gave him a gun. However, Bob didn't need to break into Tom's house in order to confront him, nor did he need to bring the gun with him. By choosing the violent and aggressive option Bob is responsible for his own death.
whenihitthesky 1 year ago
Comment removed
whenihitthesky 1 year ago
Who was the originator of the idea?
Joe
Joe sugested to Bob that he confront Tom...
However, it was Bob's own two legs that walked him to his doom.
But who provided the gun?
Joe
If Bob had confronted Tom without the gun, he probably would've lived.
Is Joe morally responsible for Bob's death?
PersonalIy, would convict both. But Joe would receive a slightly harsher sentence
TheDSofTime 1 year ago
Presidents being war criminals is nothing new. Obama will most likely be a war criminal in the future, and there is no telling on what really goes on in reality, because the mainstream media is so bad. Bush should be tried, because he was a criminal,as all the other people who played a role in sending 4000+ troops to die, for an unjust war.Ever since 9/11, more the 2 million citizens have died, or have been injured in the middle east. Also, there could be more with all the private military.
KevZen2000 1 year ago
I think Bush should be held accountable, but I don't understand the use of the gun in the analogy. I would assume it is representing the military force you talk about, but the military already had these before Bush decided to go to war w/ Iraq. I think he can't be implicated on that level for the individual deaths since his actions were more along the lines of "Bob you should use YOUR gun to confront Tom," but you can also multiply the consequences (the number of innocent deaths) astronomically.
synchronium24 1 year ago
(cont'd) I'm actually not sure, though, because the members of the military don't have the ability to rebel against him on an individual basis and don't have the organization (or, i fear, the desire) to do so as a group, so they are, in a sense, forced to commit murder on his behalf. What do you think about this, Sisyphus?
synchronium24 1 year ago
*I meant to say "I DON'T think he can be implicated on this level" in my first comment.
synchronium24 1 year ago
Joe might be 'morally' responsible for Bob's death, but certainly not legally responsible. Bob should have done his own independent research on the information given to him by Bob before acting on that information.
Analogizing this to Bush doesn't work because Bush gave the orders with the appropriate authority whereas Joe only sparked an emotional response without any authority.
VirgilFoxMusic 1 year ago
@VirgilFoxMusic (oops, by Joe)
VirgilFoxMusic 1 year ago
@VirgilFoxMusic "Bush gave the orders with the appropriate authority"
How does our being stupid enough to give him the authority to perform this action absolve him of responsibility? It's true Bob should have done his research, but Joe essentially gave him the greenlight to confront Tom. And certainly, if he gives him the actual implement that would lead to Tom's demise (which was ironically used against him), he is responsible for his death.
synchronium24 1 year ago
@VirgilFoxMusic I would say if Joe merely gave him the facts and didn't give him the gun (or suggest coming in with deadly force) and Bob still tried to kill Tom, then Joe should go free. This fucks with my views on utilitarianism (Bob dies regardless of Joe's intentions), but i'll go with virtue ethics in this situation since i'd rather be confused than a fundementalist. Actually, I love fundementalism in terms of objective ethics, but the justification has to be there.
synchronium24 1 year ago
@synchronium24 Exactly. Being a meddling shit stirrer doesn't necessarily give someone the foresight to see what their words might cause someone else to do. I think this one is quite straight forward and it scares me that anyone would consider holding the messenger accountable for someone else's arguably unpredictable action. That would be absurd.
VirgilFoxMusic 1 year ago
@synchronium24 Well, I didn't really want to talk specifically about Bush as I don't know enough about the subject. I only wanted to point out that the analogy used in the video is not really appropriate.
VirgilFoxMusic 1 year ago
It's possible that Blair will be prosecuted for war crimes as a result of evidence given at the Chilcott enquiry. Unlikely, but possible.
If Blair goes down, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the neocons are likely to follow. Those bastards are so proud of their duplicity the PNAC website still contains the smoking gun that 9/11 was at least LIHOP, if not MIHOP. Google for "PNAC primter" and feel your blood go cold when you read "new Pearl Harbor."
bdf2718 2 years ago
Bush did wrong even if the side example doesn't hold anyone responsible. Not only did Bush deceive the americans, he is the one ordering the troops, who more or less must follow his lead.
Censeo 2 years ago
But it wouldn't stop there. Where would it stop? I'll grant you your assumptions, there would advisors to Bush, there were other politicians, especially in Congress. Would we need to put the entire government on trial? Bush would not be the only morally responsible person, but you speak as if Bush should be the only person. If we do this, we should get everyone who is involved, whether in office or not, but that kind of undertaking would make things difficult and there would be a lot of delay.
startasagn 2 years ago
Bugliosi talks about this. He views it like a crime syndicate. He's convinced that if we prosecute Bush and Cheney, they'll roll on others.
As for Congress, I doubt the average member of Congress would hold much criminal responsibility. They were lied to, and they didn't actually vote to go to war, they only voted to give him the authority. At worst, it was a horrible lapse of judgment. Perhaps certain individual members are more responsible, but not Congress as a whole.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
At the asking point, here are my thoughts.
Joe would be responsible. He initiated a hostile situation based on lies, and setup the environment by hading Bob a gun and convincing him to break into his house to confront him. He would be charged with attempt to commit Murder 1 and committing Murder 2. While he didn't pull the trigger, had he not made the photos, spread the lie, hand over the gun and sent Bob into the house, both people would be alive.
startasagn 2 years ago
"whether a president sends them to war for the wrong reasons or not, they signed up to serve."
It's like you completely ignored Sisyphus when he said "ILLEGAL ORDERS ARE VOID UNDER UCMJ"
Savagery34 2 years ago
Baced on just that, no. But in a real situation I'd wont to know more about what happened in that house. If Tom got the drop on Bob and Bob surendered then it would have been wrong of Tom to shoot Bob in cold blood. On the other hand if there was a shoot out then fair enough.
I didn't get the enalergy straght away so thanks for explaining. I have to agree with you but I don't see that happening.
Disthron 2 years ago
Well, you're probably right that he will never be prosecuted (sadly, IMO), but that has more to do with power politics, rather than moral/legal (lack of) guilt.
But I'm not sure I buy your disanalogy. Soldiers choose to sign up; Bob chose to go to Tom's place and confront him. Soldiers decided to believe Bush and follow orders; Bob choose to believe Joe and took his gun. Choice doesn't seem to make a difference.
As for 'wrong reasons or not' illegal orders are void under UCMJ.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Bush should be held higher in that he was commander and cheif making up evidences which did not exist to gather together an army of people under his command to harm, destroy and kill other human beings whereas Joe and Bob dont have that kind of chain of command and neither did one command the other to do what was done. Joe and Bob dont fall under the UNlawful order deal that Bush would wouldnt you think?
KARStarla 2 years ago
The parallel cashes out, if you ask me.
fenoglios 2 years ago
The invasion of Iraq contravenes a number of provisions of the Geneva Conventions, as well as the Charter of the United Nations prohibiting wars of aggression; because Iraq did not attack the US or its allies. The soldiers in all countries which have signed those documents are obligated to refuse to carry out orders that contravene those agreements.
While Bush is the biggest war criminal here, the soldiers do have some reponsibility.
pirbird14 2 years ago
um..., I disagree, because Bush was the president.
Raven72563 2 years ago
I welcome your disagreement, but could you explain more. Why does his being the president allow him an exemption?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Couldn't you prosecute almost every American president this way?
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Not sure, but I don't think so. While there have perhaps been cases in the past where the president has fabricated evidence, lied and lead us into an unnecessary war that killed Americans, I don't think this is true of every American president.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
The author of that book watch?v=jRlJk1qhWVw
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Great argument, I really don't see a chance of it happening, but good video none the less.
WayOfTheBastard 2 years ago
I don't know if you can use the term murder.
I when I translated the analogy from three people
Joe Bob and Tom to
Bush, the US and Iraq.
The crime of the president comes out as Treason, not Murder
TheSameDonkey 2 years ago
I think Joe is morally responsible for deceiving Bob. I think Bob is morally responsible for killing Tom. Clearly Joe wanted this man dead, but he didn't kill him. It is Bob's fault for being so easily deceived (did Bob talk to Tom before killing him, or his wife?) Motivations are not will. Aside the analogy, Bush needs to be held accountable for something. Do I think he should be tried for murder? No, but perhaps something else (like not fulfilling the duties of his job description?)
acrimoneyius 2 years ago
I don't think 'not fulfilling the duties of your job' is a prosecutable offense. It might have been the basis for impeachment, but that ship has sailed. But surely there are other crimes he could be reasonably prosecuted for.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Right, and I meant he should be held 'accountable' for something else (not prosecuted by negligence; that is silly). The ship that sailed has crashed, and he was steering.. My point was that when you try someone for murder, the intent is to stop them from killing people. His method of "Murder" is being in any sort of position of power, so banishment from all politics would be a just punishment....
acrimoneyius 2 years ago
Let's face it: people just want to see this guy pay for what he has done.
Toxie207 2 years ago
Agreed.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
I was in the Marines during the Iraq war. In boot camp we were shown videos that tried to link Iraq to 9/11. I remember one video where they showed the towers as they were still bellowing smoke, and then Saddam Hussein's face materialized out of the smoke. I remember thinking that was a pretty bold move, considering that we had no evidence. It disturbed me a great deal that we were being misled like that, and I always remembered that video when I heard that one of my friends was killed.
h8uall66 2 years ago 7
That is seriously fucked up. I wonder how far up the chain of command the order to produce that video went.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
My guess is that it didn't pass beyond the regiment level. Officers in the military are masters of their own kingdoms. As long as they produce results they answer to no one. The commanding officer of MCRD San Diego at the time that I was a recruit wasn't even a combat veteran. There were many training related deaths that year, one from my own platoon. It was obvious to a few of us that our CO was a rank amateur with a fascination for conservative politics. It disgusts me.
h8uall66 2 years ago
Great video overall, but I can never forgive you for one thing: I briefly thought of GWB as 'first among equals" when you noted than none are above the law.
I will never feel clean again.
mknorman 2 years ago
There's a great song by the Cure called "The Figurehead" that uses your last line as a refrain.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Voluntary Manslaughter, yes. for Joe
But Bush was probably not fully aware that Saddam didn't have still usable WMD. Bush was most likely with blinders on the whole time, target vision and conformation bias made him keep his eyes on his paranoia, which was made easier by Saddam being a real POS human being, who btw was somehow still better than at least one of his sons.
And I've thought for years now that Saddam likely was just trying to keep Iran at bay.
brutus149 2 years ago
It's possible he really did convince himself that Saddam had WMDs. Bugliosi argues that even if he did, there is still a legal framework for holding him accountable. The question is whether a 'reasonable person' would have looked at the evidence and been convinced.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Prosecute Cheney and Rove, too.
Greywyn7 2 years ago
No argument here. Bugliosi think Cheney would cut a deal super fast.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
I would argue that bob is ultimately responsible for his own death. just because someone gives you a gun and evidence of a social slight (adultery is not a crime) that does not give you the right to invade their property while armed in order to confront them. if someone gives you a bomb and a detonator are they responsible if you blow yourself up with it? Bush should probably be charged with something, but not under this rational. (to be clear i would not convict the our hypothetical guy)
muadkak 2 years ago
I think you can admit that Bob is responsible, that he made a choice, and still hold Joe accountable, too. But if you wouldn't convict Joe, then the thought experiment will have no traction for you. Would you at least find him morally, if not legally, blameworthy?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Somehow I am more drawn to agree with the accomplished lawyer's conclusion regarding Joe's legal culpability for murder than the random dude on YouTube's denial of Joe's responsibility. It might have to do with knowledge of the law.
mavaddat 2 years ago
Sure, you can hold Joe accountable to a degree. Its accountability to the point of claiming he is guilty of murder that i cannot agree with. I will not say that he is %100 blameless.
I don't like to place blame on Joe because it sets a bad precedent in my mind. It tells people that if you blindly follow the suggestions of others, instead of thinking for yourselves, that we will blame them not you. that's the kind of thinking that got some Germans in trouble in the 40's.
muadkak 2 years ago
understandable, but i think that according to the laws set up it would find joe guilty of manslaughter, and i think that for the sake of consistency presidents shouldn't be exempt from the same laws that fall over us.
Bluedragon094 2 years ago
You may be correct about his culpability according to the law. but i still dont think that the transfer from this scenario to what pres. bush did is justified. to many differences. as far as presidents being exempt from laws they already are to a degree. we kind of pick and choose which ones to enforce. its simple fact that the position shields the man. it may not be a legal fact but it is a practical one. judges are very wary of allowing cases against the president.
muadkak 2 years ago
Well, isn't 'blindly following orders' sort of the military's job? I mean it's one thing if you're ordered to slaughter a group of children, that would be clearly an order they should refuse. But if your superior makes you believe X is a threat then surely you aren't responsible for following what to you looks like a perfectly moral and legal order, are you?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
We have some of the greatest military propaganda in the world =/
Greywyn7 2 years ago
funny you should mention that as the fact that soldiers are expected to follow orders undermines your argument to a degree. the president does have a limited power to use the military as he wishes. his justifications for doing so need not even be revealed as far as i know. Does that make what he did correct. hardly. I simply do not think it opens him up to liability for murder.
btw i enjoy your video's and appreciate your viewpoint (don't think i have said that before)
muadkak 2 years ago
He has the limited power to use the army as he wishes, but he doesn't have the power to fabricate evidence to drum up support for a war. That's a key part of his culpability. Obviously I'm not saying that any president who orders troops into combat wherein they die is guilty of murder.
Thanks for saying so. I appreciate the honest criticism.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
In fact, refusing to follow orders means death or jail (ie google "Jail for soldier who refused deployment").
Article 90 of the UCMJ
Any person subject to this chapter who willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
angelwhite 2 years ago
Bush didn't just give the soldiers a motive, he ordered them into the situation that resulted in their deaths.
samsroomie 2 years ago
The case for murder seems difficult to me, because these men aren't civilians like Bob, they are military members. Their occupation is defined by conflict and death. For the record, I did serve a four year tour in the Air Force from 2003 to 2007. If we accept the premises that he knew then surely we could get him for something, it just seems difficult to call it murder when a soldier dies in a war. I'd also like to see an untampered 9/11 inquiry.
angelwhite 2 years ago
Bugliosi speaks to that point. In short, he says that there's a long case history of prosecuting military officers for murder, and that would not provide much of a problem.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
You left out Cheney! Don't want him absconding. And while we're at it, let's go find the island where Ken Lay is living and prosecute him too.
lynchmobb2000 2 years ago
Bugliosi speaks to Cheney, saying that an investigation would no doubt uncover more damning evidence on him. He also says that Cheney is a man of such low character, so little spine, that he would cut a deal in no time.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
"Murder"? George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes, torture, illegal write tapping, violating the Geneva Conventions relating to prisoners of war, and crimes against humanity. Murder would be a concession at best.
mavaddat 2 years ago 7
I wouldn't preclude any of that, but I'd take murder for a start.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
@mavaddat He can't be tried for war crimes. The US is not a party to the Rome statute, meaning no war crime or crime against humanity within in America or committed by Americans can be prosecuted. In fairness, the US isn't the only country not signed up. But it is the only one with a "Hague Invasion" act. Not enough proximity for murder, under English law at least. Nor for the torture - I don't think you could prove he directly ordered torture. Dunno about wire tapping.
pascalyuiop 5 months ago
@mavaddat Ultimately, it's not just Bush to blame. Sure, he was the figurehead, but how about blaming Congress for not ratifying the Rome statute? Or passing an Act that says they can use any means necessary to rescue Americans convicted of war crimes? Bush had his problems, sure, but the entire political system of the US is truly to blame for allowing America to get away with such breaches of international law. Don't feel too bad - China, India, Pakistan and many others hate the ICC too.
pascalyuiop 5 months ago