Negligence Can Be A CRIME

[berni_mccoy]

Especially when people are killed. This is called Criminally Negligent Homicide and qualifies as Involuntary Manslaughter, a FELONY.

The Bush Administration is no doubt guilty of Criminally Negligent Homicide through the commission of an unlawful act (cherry picking intelligence to take us to war), which is one qualifier for Manslaughter, and without due caution and circumspection of the consequences and planning for the Iraq War, which is another qualifier for Manslaughter.

Given that over 3000 U.S. soldiers have died, that would be over 3000 counts of manslaughter... Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the entire Whitehouse Iraq Group, would be put away for life. The Bush Administration is GUILTY of over 3000 counts of MANSLAUGHTER.

It has just been reported that at least 57 Senators would not have voted for the Iraq War if they knew now what they know today. Well, the Bush Administration KNEW what would happen, and they were even told so by the Pentagon. General Shinsheki even testified in Congress that this would happen without the appropriate troop levels (350,000 to 400,000) and the proper plan for peace after the invasion.

This is prima facie evidence for Impeachment, and I wonder if those same 57 Senators could be convinced to convict.

This is simply enough for Impeachment and should gain the immediate attention of the 110th Congress.


I did not weigh in on any of the debate about Cindy Sheehan's protest during the Democratic Press Conference, but I will now. I did not like the way that it was done, but there is no doubt that she is right in doing so. I do feel that we need to break the Republican machine before pursuing impeachment, and I believe that the Democratic Caucus is right in fixing the rules on Congressional Ethics. We need to convince the Republicans that they have no way to lock-step anymore before addressing an impeachment. And I believe this recent poll on the Senate is a direct result of that. Republicans are now breaking ranks. But I also feel Cindy Sheehan was absolutely right to keep the spotlight on this issue. As Biden just reported today, even the Administration believes Iraq is lost. The next step is to bring the troops home NOW. The step immediately after that: IMPEACHMENT.

[treestar]

1. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is an odd phrase

Bushco's lying about the WMD would seem to qualify.

The RW argument I have most often heard is to the effect that Clinton was "convicted" of perjury and that * has not been, but I don't see that the Constitution requires a conviction.

Naturally their first line of attack is "this is war." War is different, don't you know, it gives the President unlimited power. :sarcasm:

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. 7500 counts.

3000 for Iraq. 3000 for 9/11. 1500 for New Orleans.

[Orsino]

14. ...plus another half-million or so, at least. n/t

[madokie]

3. I lilke what you're saying

must keep the horse in front of the wagon, always, always must

[cassiepriam]

4. I have long thought it is criminal negligence and he should be charged.

Failure to heed the 9/11 warnings, failure to respond to Katrina,
deliberately sending troops into harm's way, and the killing of so many Iraqis.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Though I Can Relate To Your Passion And Premise, It Still Has No Factual Bearing.

I know we may wish it did, but the OP is still pure commentary and opinion and the premise is far from being factual in any court of law whatsoever. I state this because for some reason you put the premise forth as if it had some legal bearing or legitimacy, rather than making it clear it is just simply an opinion that has no root in fact.

But I hear ya.

[berni_mccoy]

7. It certainly would be enough for an indictment

Which is really what an impeachment is about. Impeachment is not a criminal process either, it's political. And the case does not need to be proven, it simply needs a majority vote. The Senate becomes the Grand Jury in essence.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. You Can Not Jump Back And Forth Like That With Logical Premise.

Either you were talking about a criminal process or you were talking about a political process. Your OP put forth a premise rooted in a criminal process, of which I responded. You are now going forward from my comments with the premise now being put forth as a political one, which by nature is an opinionated process as I stated earlier. Had your OP used the political premise rather than a criminal one, my reply would have been different. But you put forth the criminal premise as if factual, which as stated it is not. If you are now changing that premise to be a political one instead then I have no issue, as it is in alignment with my statements that the premise put forth was one of opinion and commentary.

[berni_mccoy]

11. I'm not going to debate the semantics of the post

But there is enough evidence at face value to indict. Of course, there would be a factual discovery process in any criminal proceeding.

My OP talked about a CRIME being the justification for IMPEACHMENT.

I did not change that in my response to you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Wait, So Now You Are Combining The Two Premises? Jesus.

It is not semantics, it is factual accuracy.

Based on what you wrote now, I stand by my original statement and continue to disagree. Your criminal premise is completely without factual basis and in no way would garner a criminal indictment. Saying it would is nothing more than hopeful commentary and opinion of which though I agree with your passion for, also can acknowledge its complete lack of bearing in a factual realm.

As far as being the basis for impeachment, that is accurate since such basis need not be anything that holds up in a court of law whatsoever, since the process is solely a political one and the decision to indict for impeachment is one squarely of opinion completely outside any criminal proceeding.

[berni_mccoy]

13. Peace Friend

I am not seeking an argument, only understanding.

My claims of evidence are in the facts that the Administration cherry-picked intelligence (do you want me to site sources or do you not agree with that) which would be just one route to proving the crime. The other evidence is that they knew the outcome of not having a post-war plan or not having enough troops. Generel Shinsheki TESTIFIED as such before Congress. He advised them they needed both and they IGNORED HIM. This is clearly criminal negligence given the outcome.

Those were indeed in my OP. If you do not agree that the Administration cherry-picked intelligence, then I would say, one of two things:
1. There is another argument (ignoring the recommendations of the Pentagon) and,
2. Several intelligent officials have reported that they had intel that said Iraq had NO WMD

I'm not even claiming that the Admin FALSIFIED intel, which I believe they did, but have no evidence of.

I hope this clears things up. I don't seek to be an adversary of yours and I respect the many good posts you have made.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Oh Absolutely, Do Not Get Me Wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree that they cherry picked intelligence and then some. DSM Anyone? My response only stems from the theory of that leading to criminal negligence/manslaughter, which whether we like it or not would never have bearing in a true court of law.

But my gripe was only with the that premise being put forth as fact rather than opinion, but we can agree to disagree on that.

And by no means do I consider you an adversary or otherwise. It is all just innocent debate friend! Like I said in each other post, as far as the level you are coming from and its passionate roots, I stand with you fully. I too want nothing more than to see this administration pay harshly for its misdeeds.

[berni_mccoy]

16. I see what you are saying now

I made an allegation: "The Bush Administration is no doubt guilty of Criminally Negligent Homicide" but it should have been stated as "The Bush Administration appears to be guilty of Criminally Negligent Homicide".

I see the difference as you point it out because I am not proving the case, only presenting it.

Unfortunately, I can not edit the original post, but I stand corrected nonetheless.

[H2O Man]

10. Impeachment is

actually more accurately viewed as a civil case, rather than a political process. It involves an actual trial, overseen by the highest judge in the nation. It has legal consequences, which are political in nature.

[H2O Man]

6. It surely can be.

A good example is when we look at the responsibility parents have for their children's care. Many of the criminal behaviors that do not meet the definition of "abuse" are covered as "negligence." And it is pretty clear that there are people in the administration who were neglectful, at best.

More, however, the VP has abused the office in his purposeful manipulation of the intelligence that was used to bring this nation to war. That is where I believe the democrats should focus their initial efforts.

[porphyrian]

9. I'll kick that. - n/t

[mopinko]

17. those 57 senators are liars. sorry, they are.

i listened to those debates. robert byrd stood up and said that he had asked george tenant what had changed in iraq to make it an immediate threat and tenet told him "NOTHING". byrd also warned that they were signing a blank check.
so, they should have known. they were warned and they didn't listen. of all the talking points out there about this debacle, this one pisses me off the most. what was happening was no fucking secret. if senators "didn't know" they are equally negligent. many in our party have plenty of blood on their hands.

[berni_mccoy]

19. I completely agree

I was only referencing that fact because the Republicans are now breaking ranks with the GOP machinery setup by BushCo... this is the beginning of a much larger change. And with this change comes the ability to impeach the criminals responsible for the disaster in Iraq and our own country.

[Lerkfish]

18. you need to include New Orleans in a negligence charge.

that debacle is more cut and dried negligence, IMHO, and should be easier to prosecute.

but I'm not lawyer so what do I know.