Quote:
Originally Posted by The Black Ghost
(Snipped)
THe "murder" veiwpoint is naive and ignorant. You can argue if his effect in decisions was correct, but to charge him with murder is the same as chargin the poliice cheif with murder if he sends in a sqaud to go bring in some criminals and some police get killed in the process.
|
You take the position that the decisions were blunders. If you listen to the interview, Bugliosi strongly takes the position that they were not blunders, that they were intentional and knowing...as in knowing that there were no womd and no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein, and that Bush had that information in front of him, but squelched it on purpose.
In NY State (and I am sure in other states there are similar statutes) there is what is called "depraved indifference murder". This is a the same level as an Intentional Murder, but requires no "intent to kill" anyone specifically. It has the same penalties as intentional murder...a sentence of 25 years to life.
The definition of this crime in NY State is as follows:
"A person is guilty of depraved indifference murder in the second degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person, Penal Law Section 125.25[2]."
Acting "recklessly" is further defined in Penal Law Section 15.05[3]:
"A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exist. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in a situation."
If there is solid evidence (as Bugliosi asserts) that there was firm intelligence information that no womd and no imminent threat to the U.S. from Saddam Hussein, or Iraq in general, and it was known but covered up intentionally, as Bugliosi claims, or if there is evidence that there were plans for faking and baiting Iraq into a first attack because there wasn't any "clear and present danger" upon which to base attack and war....I'd say the conduct would fall within the conduct described in that statute.
Whether or not there will be a prosecution will depend on the evidence that can be made out, AND whether there are any prosecutors who determine that they could bring such charges, who also have the culliones to do it. It will take big ones!