quote:Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.
Now Rasmussen Reports claims this to be evenly divided, but I don't see it that way.
It looks to me like 61% of Democrats believe it's at least possible that George Bush would have been willing to let 3,000 people die on 9/11.
No, scratch that. Because normally there are tens of thousands of people in the towers. Bush would have had to have been willing to let tens of thousands of people die to allow 9/11 to happen.
And a third of democrats really see that as a certainty, and another third refuse to dismiss it as silly?
I don't understand what I'm supposed to think about Bush.
Sometimes I'm told he's an ignorant clod who sneaks back to drink in secret while smarter (and eviler) guys than him run the country.
Sometimes I'm told he'sthe evil one, and is trying to become emperor of the world so that his oil buddies can make extra money.
And sometimes he's crazy man who thinks God talks to him who is set on making the whole world Christian.
So my questions for Democrats are:
1. What do you think of the results of this poll?
2. How "Evil" is the president?
3. Who is George Bush, as you see it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I rarely look to a subject's opponents when laying the foundation of an opinion.
Scratch that, I just don't.
Opposing political parties having the lowest of opinions of each other is nothing new in politics.
The south left the union when Lincoln was elected, thats got to be at least marginally worse then Democrats who choose to still interact with Bush and his administration right now.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
And Lincoln was a Republican.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: And Lincoln was a Republican.
What is your point? Honestly just wondering.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If the way that this is presented is accurate, I'm very surprised. It's hard to say without seeing the poll questions though.
The question could be akin to whether or not they had intelligence that it would happen. In which case, I'd answer a weak yes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think it's too uncommon for the arguments of the lunatic fringe to be picked up and believed -- even a little -- by a significant percentage of partisans. Look at how many Republicans believed that Clinton was a drug-running rapist.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From the link:
quote:Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I'm with Squicky on thinking the phrasing of the questions was different than what's being reported.
quote:How "Evil" is the president?
I was actually just thinking about this topic. I think that Bush's intent is probably good. I think he most likely sees the war as being about terrorism instead of oil. I think this requires a high level of cognitive dissonance, but I don't think he's sitting around twirling his moustache and scheming. Regardless of his intent though, I consider the man to be quite evil. I think he consistently deludes himself by surrounding himself with people of similar viewpoints and that his delusions have cost tens of thousands of lives. I think his administration is incredibly corrupt. From wire tapping to Guatanamo to firing federal prosecuters, Bush has made it clear that he doesn't want to follow the rules about seperation of powers. Instead, he gathers up all the power for himself to do what he believes needs doing. I don't think the best of intentions can make up for this willfull disregard of our laws and of the reality of situations, especially when the cost is so high.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think it's too uncommon for the arguments of the lunatic fringe to be picked up and believed -- even a little -- by a significant percentage of partisans. Look at how many Republicans believed that Clinton was a drug-running rapist.
Exactly.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
People WANT to belive in conspiracy theories. From Area 51 to 9/11, its all the same thing.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Bush has been so gung ho about the war, regardless of setbacks, regardless of public opinion, regardless of its lack or progress, regardless of generals who say it's being mismanaged... it's pretty obvious this war is his baby. He also doesn't seem to mind allowing thousands of US soldiers die over there, for what most people see as little real gain.
It's not a huge leap from there.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:He also doesn't seem to mind allowing thousands of US soldiers die over there, for what most people see as little real gain.
I don't know how you could possibly know how Bush feels about our soldiers dying in the thousands out there. Do you have an insider with information the general public is not privy to?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Perhaps I should have said that Bush clearly, by his words and actions, feels that the deaths of thousands of US soldiers in the War On Terror are justified and well spent. If he does mind, it isn't enough to make him rethink our involvement.
I've also never seen him give a speech saying how our losses are becoming unacceptable, but rather he's said many times that we're going to stay over there as long as he's President, come hell or high water, and nobody else can do a damn thing about it.
I have never seen any evidence that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I think he's shown himself to be exactly the kind of person who would not be above sacrificing thousands of lives if he felt it served a greater good: making war with Iraq easy to get into, and allowing massive inroads towards taking away personal freedoms and privacy and keeping the population cowed with fear of terrorist threats.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I have never seen any evidence that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I think he's shown himself to be exactly the kind of person who would not be above sacrificing thousands of lives if he felt it served a greater good: making war with Iraq easy to get into, and allowing massive inroads towards taking away personal freedoms and privacy and keeping the population cowed with fear of terrorist threats.
Not that you need evidence to support that kind of thinking--because you already think he's such a wretchedly evil person, the "absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence", so to speak, for such a conspirator-but do you actually have any?
Let's start with one claim: aside from personal belief-another word for it would be prejudice-do you have any real evidence that he is allowing "massive inroads" towards taking away personal freedoms and privacy in order to use fear as a club to cow the public?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Do I need to prove to you that the sky is blue or are you gonna quibble that its really a prism of colours based on the angle of light hitting the atmosphere.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Actually, it's blue because of an angle-independant scattering effect that favors blue over other colors.
If what you said was true, the sky would change colors as the sun moved. The red at sunset is a different phenomenon.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: do you have any real evidence that he is allowing "massive inroads" towards taking away personal freedoms and privacy in order to use fear as a club to cow the public?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I guess you haven't heard about the wire-tapping, arrests without trial or representation, patriot act, terror threat levels, no-fly lists...
I guess you're right though. He's not really allowing these things to happen, he's actively pushing them forward.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
This is unsurprising and sad. Then again the other side has had significant percentages of partisans who believed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11.
There just seems to be idiots in both parties. Nothing gets groups of people energized than clear heroes and villains no matter how erroneously identified, I guess.
-Bok
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
1. When I read the phrase, "George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance," I'm not certain what they mean.
Is it that Bush had the terrorists' plan and timetable in front of him and said, "Hot diggity! We're letting this one go through, boys. Think of the domestic blunt instrument we can make out of this!"
Or is it that Bush was given ample evidence that there was a very real threat, but decided that he really needed to clear some brush instead.
2. From what I know of Bush, I wouldn't call him evil.
3. Misguided, arrogant, deluded, and out of his depth, maybe. But not evil.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I guess you haven't heard about the wire-tapping, arrests without trial or representation, patriot act, terror threat levels, no-fly lists...
The existence of such things is far from proof of the ridiculous claims you're making.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think it's too uncommon for the arguments of the lunatic fringe to be picked up and believed -- even a little -- by a significant percentage of partisans. Look at how many Republicans believed that Clinton was a drug-running rapist.
Exactly.
Exactly what?
I don't know any Reupublicans who thought that Clinton was a drug-running rapist. Never seen or heard any allegations about Clinton being a drug runner. Where'd you ever hear that before.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I don't think any president would allow 3000 US citizens to be killed if they knew about it before hand.
I agree with Bok. I also immediately thought of the shocking percentage of people who thought (some idiots still think it even now, with no evidence!) Saddam planned 9/11.
I have been against almost all of President Bush's major policies since after the Afghanistan War, with the exception of his moderate stance on immigration. But I don't know if he's evil. That's not a word I throw around lightly.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
I don't think Bush knew that 9/11 specifically was going to happen. I do think he was made aware of the possibility of Al-Qaeda sponsored attacks against our country, and did not act in a timely fashion to deal with this possibility. So, no, I don't hold him personally responsible.
I do think that the homeland security department that Clinton was trying to get started right before he left office was ignored. And I think that has less to do with Bush using American lives to further his agenda, than it does with Bush and most Republicans trying to thwart absolutely everything Clinton tried to do. It's kind of like what the Democrats are doing now. Well, if Bush came up with it let's thwart it, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Partisan politics are ridiculous. Neither side can honestly claim they are right about everything all the time.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: It looks to me like 61% of Democrats believe it's at least possible that George Bush would have been willing to let 3,000 people die on 9/11.
No, scratch that. Because normally there are tens of thousands of people in the towers. Bush would have had to have been willing to let tens of thousands of people die to allow 9/11 to happen.
Without making any statement on my actual opinion on this topic, I would like to point out that believing that Bush knew about the terrorist attacks in advance is not the same as beliveing that Bush was willing to sacrifice thousands in the attack. The planes themselves would not have had even remotely as huge a body count without the collapse of the towers. While it is still a lot of people to sacrifice, it is a lot easier to imagine someone "justifying away" a couple hundred or so lives for some percieved greater good than it is to imagine them doing the same for several thousand.
Again, this doesn't mean I believe that he had prior knowledge, just that I disagree with your interpretation of the survey.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The existence of such things is far from proof of the ridiculous claims you're making.
What ridiculous claims have I made? I said Bush isn't above sacrificing lives if he feels it serves a greater good. I think the war clearly shows that. I said that he wants to deprive American citizens of their freedoms, and keep the population afraid of terrorist threats, which I think is clearly proven by the very examples I pointed out.
What other ridiculous claims do you feel that I'm making, which are not substantiated?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think it's too uncommon for the arguments of the lunatic fringe to be picked up and believed -- even a little -- by a significant percentage of partisans. Look at how many Republicans believed that Clinton was a drug-running rapist.
Exactly.
Exactly what?
I don't know any Reupublicans who thought that Clinton was a drug-running rapist. Never seen or heard any allegations about Clinton being a drug runner. Where'd you ever hear that before.
I heard many republicans say that Clinton because he had used drugs in the past and was so evasive with his, "I didn't inhale" comment that he likely still used drugs in office. They also said his sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky were rape as he abused his powers to get her to consent.
Not saying I agree with it, but you said nobody called him a drug runner rapist.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Mig:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think it's too uncommon for the arguments of the lunatic fringe to be picked up and believed -- even a little -- by a significant percentage of partisans. Look at how many Republicans believed that Clinton was a drug-running rapist.
Exactly.
Exactly what?
I don't know any Reupublicans who thought that Clinton was a drug-running rapist. Never seen or heard any allegations about Clinton being a drug runner. Where'd you ever hear that before.
I heard many republicans say that Clinton because he had used drugs in the past and was so evasive with his, "I didn't inhale" comment that he likely still used drugs in office. They also said his sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky were rape as he abused his powers to get her to consent.
Not saying I agree with it, but you said nobody called him a drug runner rapist.
What exactly is "many" here. While I've heard a lot of bad things about Clinton, I've never heard this particular one before from anybody.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Criminey, look somebody said nobody ever accused Clinton of doing those things. I was a republican back in the Clinton days, and I heard people say those things, heck I might still vote republican come next election so me writing them now means it has been said. I don't know why we are plumbing me for arbitrary numbers.
If we are talking about Republican politicians holding political office then NO I know of nobody who said those things specifically. If we are talking about Republicans in the country there is at least ONE person who said it and therefore it was said.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: We have conducted Clinton Rapist Protests in 143 cities, from Auckland New Zealand, to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, following the former president to dozens of cities.
quote:I said Bush isn't above sacrificing lives if he feels it serves a greater good.
Yeah, and neither is anyone else. But that's not all you said, either.
quote:I said that he wants to deprive American citizens of their freedoms, and keep the population afraid of terrorist threats, which I think is clearly proven by the very examples I pointed out.
Nor is that what you said.
quote:I have never seen any evidence that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I think he's shown himself to be exactly the kind of person who would not be above sacrificing thousands of lives if he felt it served a greater good: making war with Iraq easy to get into, and allowing massive inroads towards taking away personal freedoms and privacy and keeping the population cowed with fear of terrorist threats.
That's what you said. You're not just saying that you think President Bush is the sort of person who would sacrifice the lives of soldiers for the greater good, you're saying he's exactly the kind of person (another way of saying that is that he is that person) who would do deliberate, calculated harm to the United States to serve his aims.
As well as murdering thousands of civilians.
That's a ridiculous claim, and you have no evidence for it. You make your own case look bad by making such silly statements.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You're not just saying that you think President Bush is the sort of person who would sacrifice the lives of soldiers for the greater good, you're saying he's exactly the kind of person (another way of saying that is that he is that person) who would do deliberate, calculated harm to the United States to serve his aims.
As well as murdering thousands of civilians.
Where does he do any of this?
Everything MC said was couched in doing it for the greater good, not his own personal aims. And MC said nothing about murdering anyone.
You seem to be the one making ridiculous claims.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, permitting thousands of civilians to die when you could have stopped it-particularly when you have a duty to stop it-isn't that pretty clearly murder?
I'm willing to write that off to a subjective difference, but to me, it's murder.
"His personal aims" and "what he thinks is the greater good", there's not really much difference between the two, is there?
No, since he pretty clearly has suggested President Bush is "exactly the kind of person" who would be a mass murderer-even if he did not say so explicitly-my claims aren't ridiculous.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
It seems to me that if you are a Democrat then Bill Clinton did nothing wrong and was persecuted by Evil Republicans, while any rumor, half-truth, falsification about Bush should be believed 100%. Believing is Seeing when looking at Clinton and Bush.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yes, in much the same way that there is no difference between stabbing someone as part of a robbery versus cutting into him as part of surgery.
Yes, in much the same way that slicing open the man on the operating table's neck without his consent to harvest organs for three other needy people remains murder.
Edit: It's interesting, that MightyCow is the one who is suggesting President Bush is "exactly the kind of person" who would murder thousands of innocent people, and I'm the one who's being absurd.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, No matter how many times you say that MC said that Bush would murder people, it's never going to be true. He didn't say it.
And it should be noted that President Bush did get us into an war in Iraq without an imminent or even short term threat and he has pushed pretty strongly to descrease privacy and certain types of individual rights. And he's claimed to be doing these things for the greater good.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I was trying to figure out how to reply to Rakeesh, but MrSquicky has been doing quite well. Thanks.
It's absurdly difficult to make a case for yourself when someone isn't arguing with what you actually said, but with their own interpretation of what you said.
Do I think Bush would personally blow up a dozen US soldiers? No.
Do I think Bush would tell a dozen US soldiers to drive down a street in an unarmored vehicle, without adequate personal body armor, in an area where insurgents are known to blow up soldiers? Yes.
It's up to you to decide if they amount to the same thing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh man, there's this guy who occasionally shows up on the street corner with a sign that says "Clinton raped juanita"
Cracks me up every time. The back of the sign says "Kerry throws like a girl"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There are degrees of murder, Mr. Squicky and MightyCow. I coulda sworn I read that somewhere, in fact...
quote:No matter how many times you say that MC said that Bush would murder people, it's never going to be true. He didn't say it.
I've already acknlowdged the subjective nature of the word 'murder', although I hasten to point out that if, as MightyCow implies, President Bush did let 9-11 happen, it certainly was murder in the legal sense in most if not all of the United States.
(Oh, wait, he didn't say that President Bush did that...he just said that President Bush has proven himself exactly the kind of man who would do that. Big difference there)
quote:Do I think Bush would tell a dozen US soldiers to drive down a street in an unarmored vehicle, without adequate personal body armor, in an area where insurgents are known to blow up soldiers? Yes.
Yes or no: If President Bush gave such an order, and did so for reasons not specifically related to the mission at hand-even if for what he terms "the greater good"-would that be murder? Or at least manslaughter?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
You're putting words in people's mouths, Rakeesh. And you're trying to get clarification merely in the hope that that clarification will justify your view that their beliefs are "ridiculous" and "absurd". I don't see why anyone should humor that.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:"His personal aims" and "what he thinks is the greater good", there's not really much difference between the two, is there?
Yes, in much the same way that there is no difference between stabbing someone as part of a robbery versus cutting into him as part of surgery.
You're being absurd.
More directly:
If Iraq is about preventing terrorism, or stabilizing the Middle East, or establishing a democracy in the region, or even protecting an unstable petroleum market, it could be said to be about "the greater good."
If Iraq is about securing a personal legacy, or funneling tax dollars into companies tied to the administration, or perpetuating a state of uncertainty wherein cowed representatives are less likely to check executive power, it could very easily be said to be about "his personal aims" without being about "the greater good".
Not that there's necessarily a strict either-or.
For my two cents on the original subject: I think there's pretty significant evidence that information about the Al-Qaeda threat was available pre 9/11/01, and that Bush either did not make himself privy to that information or did not find that information compelling (possibly because it came out of the Clinton administration.) That said, that's a far cry from knowing there was going to be a specific attack on a specific day and allowing it to happen. I don't know if, as the question was stated, any of the respondents were commenting on the former but not intending to imply the latter.
In calm, I really don't think Bush is a evil man. He may even be a good man. I just don't think he should ever have been allowed to rise to his current position.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Rakeesh, You're the one who keeps throwing the word murder around.
I'm just making an observation about Bush's values and goals, based on his own words and past actions. He has some sort of greater good or grand plan in mind for America and the War on Terror, and he has shown a dogged devotion to the War. In my mind, he has also shown serious disregard for the rights and privacy of Americans in the process. He has ignored or glossed over a great deal of advice and evidence which doesn't further his goals.
I have not seen any evidence that satisfied my natural disbelief that he had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Since that time, based on his actions and words, I would not be horribly surprised if I did at some time see credible evidence that he had information about the attacks which he disregarded or glossed over.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You're putting words in people's mouths, Rakeesh. And you're trying to get clarification merely in the hope that that clarification will justify your view that their beliefs are "ridiculous" and "absurd". I don't see why anyone should humor that.
If someone says to me, "This crayon...it's a sort of really dark orange. Almost like the color of an apple," I'm not putting words in their mouth to say that the crayon is red, am I? Of course not.
quote:I have never seen any evidence that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I think he's shown himself to be exactly the kind of person who would not be above sacrificing thousands of lives if he felt it served a greater good...
The implication here is obvious. You haven't seen any evidence that he knew about 9/11 before it happened, but you think he's exactly the kind of person who would permit 9/11 to happen. It's even in the same bloody sentence, everyone.
As for asking the question to get clarification, no, I don't need clarification for myself. I'm attempting to illustrate the flaw to others. And the question I asked-which MightyCow hasn't answered yet-was brought on by him, not me, stating his claim.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
The reason some people believe Clinton is a rapist is that he was accused of rape by Juanita Broderick. The accusation was credible but there was no hard evidence.
It wasn't just his opponents that believed it. A significant majority at the time believed Broderick's accusation. At the same time a significant majority believed that Clinton should remain President. This disturbed me because it meant that a significant minority believed that a rapist should be President.
I have never heard before any accusation that Clinton was a drug runner. I hadn't heard accusations that he was a current drug user, either, but even if he had been, that is not the same as a drug runner.
So the situation with Clinton was very different. We had alleged eyewitness/victim testimony against him for rape, and it is not outrageous that a majority believed it although they really should have said "I don't know." If any group thought he was a drug runner that group was so small that we still have not heard from them.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I have never seen any evidence that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I think he's shown himself to be exactly the kind of person who would not be above sacrificing thousands of lives if he felt it served a greater good...
The implication here is obvious. You haven't seen any evidence that he knew about 9/11 before it happened, but you think he's exactly the kind of person who would permit 9/11 to happen. It's even in the same bloody sentence, everyone.
Well, you get an A+ for repeating what I said. Thanks for the extra exposure Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Bah Ill save my witty post for later.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And you get an A+ for not answering a direct question, MightyCow. Thanks for further illustrating the point I'm making. *wink*
But, at least now you're backing off from your original statement-that Pres.Bush is 'exactly like' someone who would murder (oh, alright, 'permit to die when he could have stopped it' then, for whatever the hell difference that makes)-and saying you "wouldn't be surprised" if it turned out he let 9-11 happen.
And describe to me again, would you please, what term would you use to describe someone who is charged with defending people, and then permits them to be killed when he could have prevented it? When he had a duty to prevent it?
Can you honestly tell me you wouldn't call that murder? Is it only murder when the person has a bloodstained knife in their hands?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:You're putting words in people's mouths, Rakeesh. And you're trying to get clarification merely in the hope that that clarification will justify your view that their beliefs are "ridiculous" and "absurd". I don't see why anyone should humor that.
If someone says to me, "This crayon...it's a sort of really dark orange. Almost like the color of an apple," I'm not putting words in their mouth to say that the crayon is red, am I? Of course not.
quote:I have never seen any evidence that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I think he's shown himself to be exactly the kind of person who would not be above sacrificing thousands of lives if he felt it served a greater good...
The implication here is obvious. You haven't seen any evidence that he knew about 9/11 before it happened, but you think he's exactly the kind of person who would permit 9/11 to happen. It's even in the same bloody sentence, everyone.
As for asking the question to get clarification, no, I don't need clarification for myself. I'm attempting to illustrate the flaw to others. And the question I asked-which MightyCow hasn't answered yet-was brought on by him, not me, stating his claim.
As far as I can tell, the only possible implication present that has anything to do with 9/11 is the observation that Bush’s agendas (whether selfish, utilitarian, or just plain senseless) and undeniably failed execution of this war clearly show that he is willing to continually sacrifice the lives of others for a cause unknown and/or unsupported by the majority of American citizens - arguably an offense not a whole lot worse than consciously allowing a terrorist attack on American soil to occur. In both cases, thousands of lives are lost directly due to intentional inaction.
While this opinion is rather direct, it is far from outrageous or unjustifiable.
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
I don't think Bush knew. I don't think anyone in his admin knew. I don't think anyone in his circle gave a damn who Osama bin Ladin was before 9/11. I think they were eager to go to war and used 9/11 as a pretext to launch the war they wanted while deliberately dragging their feet and then (probably not deliberately) completely bungling the war they should have fought.
But I think there is a lot of truth that people WANT to believe conspiracy theories, I think it was true of the president's circle at the time of 9/11, and if we can blame anyone for the current debacle in Iraq, perhaps we should blame Laurie Mylroie.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am very sad when utter crap like loose change starts getting taken seriously by such large portions of the populace.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I haven't answered your big question yet, because it's just silly. Of course it isn't murder when a commander orders troops into danger, so the military portion is out. I also realize that sometimes a world leader has to make hard choices. If Bush had credible evidence of an imminent attack, and allowed it through, I don't think that's murder - I do think it's wrong, and makes him a cold bastard.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
The poll was not balanced with respect to party membership. Someone with more time could actually calculate the likely proportions of Republicans to Democrats, but suffice it to say that if the Dems came in at 35% and the Republicans came in at 18%, and the overall poll results came in at 22%, then there is likely some sort of party-affiliation imbalance in the make up of the polled audience. Of course, we can't know for sure because:
a) They don't tell us, and, b) We don't know how many self-identified independents there were.
Other things they don't tell us:
1) How the people were selected. They don't even bother to say this is a "random" sample. 2) What the other questions in the poll were (ever taken a push poll? The context of the other questions can matter a great deal). 3) Who conducted the poll. It appears that this Rasmussen group was the pollster, but they also say that they "publish" poll results which could indicate that the poll was performed by someone else.
At any rate, I won't even begin to defend something that could well be completely incorrect.
I also recommend not taking this kind of thing at face value no matter how well it plays to a particular negative attitude.
================================================== As for Bush, I have had an intense dislike for the man since I first started reading about him. His character is flawed, he comes off as an ignorant man to my ear, and he is a proponent of some of the most negative things that I see in our country, including the death penalty, top-down economic theories, and spending vast sums of money on failed programs (such as the no-child-left-behind which turned out to be based on a pack of lies by the Houston school district -- well documented).
Now, all of that was known and knowable before the first election.
Since then, he has engaged our country in a pre-emptive war (no matter how one views the value of removing Saddam from power, the fact is that there is a fairly strong consensus that the Iraq war does not meet the criteria of "just war"), made further attacks on education, authorized domestic spying, excused or ignored torture, overseen massive violations of the Geneva convention, installed two of the worst individuals as Attorney General ever foisted upon the Justice Department, politicized several US government departments to the point where the science or expert legal opinions have been obviously squelched, and made some rather unsavory bargains with one particularly ugly branch of Christianity for what appear to have been reasons of political expedience rather than actual belief on his part.
Hey, what's not to like.
Oh yeah, he also kept Dick Cheney in power eight years longer than absolutely necessary.
He has done very little that would earn my trust. In fact, about the only thing I've seen him do right is temporize the calls for severe crackdowns on illegal immigrants.
In every other way, he has been an unmitigated disaster for this country and I look forward to his departure from office.
In the meantime, it matters little to me what he "knew" prior to 911. If it turns out that he had solid intel on that and didn't act on it, I'd still have to decide if he did it deliberately or if he just (reasonably) didn't believe it to be accurate.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It wasn't just silly.
quote:If Bush had credible evidence of an imminent attack, and allowed it through, I don't think that's murder - I do think it's wrong, and makes him a cold bastard
Well, thanks for finally answering. So, not even negligent homicide, or manslaughter?
A broader question, to everyone-just to gauge how accepted my definition of the word 'murder' is: if the President did know about 9/11 prior to the attack, knew it would result in at least one civilian death, and permitted it to go through, would he be a murderer?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No - he didn't pull the trigger or set the plan in motion.
He'd have abetted the conspiracy, however.
This is all entirely hypothetical, however - I don't believe for a second that they knew about it before it happened, and I'm really sad that anyone else does.
[ May 18, 2007, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I say it's silly, because we don't apply the word murder to things like world leaders making national security decisions and military leaders making choices in battle.
If the President stabs someone, it could be murder. If he orders troops into battle, it may be foolish, or ill-advised, or wasteful, or negligent, or any number of things, but it's just not "murder" by any definition of the word.
I'm not really understanding what you're trying to prove. Get to the point already.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:This is all entirely hypothetical, however - I don't believe for a second that they knew about it before it happened, and I'm really sad that anyone else does.
After the things that we were assured were true from Colin Powell's U.N. speech turned out to be false, lies, and in some cases necessarily fabricated, I'm not sure I can fault people for accepting that the Bush administration may do or have done even worse things.
The lead up to the Iraq war (the U.N. speech in particular) was an enormous betrayal of trust. It makes me sad that so many people seem not to care about it.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Well, there is the infamous Presidential Daily Briefing from August 2001. It talks about Bin Laden's determination to strike in the US, mentions the previous WTC attack in '93, talks of plans to hijack planes. And it says "FBI info since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other attacks, including recent surveillence of federal buildings in NY." http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf
But no one connected the dots, or could reasonably be expected to. The Bush administration did give terrorism a low priority pre-9/11. Nobody can say if a more aggresive stance on terrorism would have stopped the attack though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think the administration cooked up a reason to cover their desire to invade Iraq anyway, but I don't believe for a second that someone connected the dots, figured out there was going to be an attack, and then President Bush was informed of all of this and sat on it.
That requires a leap that is unwarranted and I'm a little floored anyone is making it.
What do y'all think about the theory that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened and let it happen anyway? Same thing?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And, depending on how the poll was worded, I would have said that I believed that President Bush had information about the attacks before they happened.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
MightCow,
quote:Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with "malice aforethought." The element of malice aforethought can be satisfied by an intentional killing, which is considered express malice. Malice can also be implied: deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice murders. The maximum penalty for murder is usually life imprisonment, and in jurisdictions with capital punishment, the death penalty may be imposed. As with most legal terms, the precise definition varies between jurisdictions. Unlawful killings without malice are considered manslaughter.
And yes, if national leaders make military decisions for other than military reasons, it can be called murder. It's been done before.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, What does that have to do with anything MC said? Could you make the connection explict? Because I don't see one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
MightCow has said, more than once, that President Bush is "exactly the kind of person" who would permit thousands of civilians to die in pursuit of "the greater good".
That's reckless behavior to say the least, wouldn't you agree? He's since modified his statements somewhat, but initially he didn't even seperate 9/11 and letting people die with a period.
quote:I have never seen any evidence that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, but I think he's shown himself to be exactly the kind of person who would not be above sacrificing thousands of lives if he felt it served a greater good...
Now he can say all he wants, after the fact, that in the second part of the sentence he wasn't actually talking about 9/11 but rather about military deaths, but that's not at all what his phrasing was suggesting.
The connection lies in that, and in him rejecting the application of the word 'murder' to apply to the President Bush of his descriptions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What kat said. Especially about FDR.
I think that the Bush adminsitration could have had all the information and not put it together, or not taken it seriously enough. I think that is very likely. I don't think, they were aware of what was going to happen and decided to allow it.
And, as kat said, much of the same conspiracy stuff is still going on about FDR.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That's reckless behavior to say the least, wouldn't you agree?
No. Not in the slightest. edit: In that instance, based on the characterization that you gave, the decision would have been made with careful deliberation, which is the opposite of recklessness.
And besides, even if it were, you still wouldn't be meeting the definition of murder you posted, as you couldn't imply malice from that specific recklessness.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No. Not in the slightest. edit: In that instance, based on the characterization that you gave, the decision would have been made with careful deliberation, which is the opposite of recklessness.
That's an acceptable definition of "recklessness," but not in the context of the "malice" element of murder. Recklessness is the intentional disregard of a known risk. Careful consideration is perfectly consistent with such recklessness, and, in fact, helps establish the "known" portion of the element.
I think the recklessness here would be sufficient to prove malice if the information in the president's hands was reliable and definite concerning the attack and would have made it almost certain that the attack could have been thwarted. It's at least equivalent to "depraved indifference". Malice would not be the difficult element to prove here.
What would be difficult is showing that the President had a legal duty to act (as opposed to a moral duty, which I think we all agree he had if he knew). Omissions are not the basis for murder charges absent a legal duty to act. There's no general recognized legal duty to protect specific citizens from known criminal dangers.
Finally, the doctrine of intervening act may prevent murder from being an appropriate charge. If an intervening human agency causes the death of a victim, then the defendant cannot be charged with murder unless either 1) the intervening act foreseeable, instinctive, and for the purposes of self-preservation or the execution of a legal duty, or 2) the defendant's act or omission was "an operating and a substantial cause" of the death - that is death would have occurred absent the intervening acts. 1) does not apply here, because the terrorist acts were neither instinctive acts of self preservation nor for the purposes of a legal duty. 2) does not apply at all.
In short, the omission of disregarding specific information that would have led to stopping 9/11 is almost certainly recklessness enough to qualify for malice, but the omission is likely not an adequate predicate for murder, either because no legal duty was breached or an intervening act was the cause of death.
I'd consider it the moral equivalent of murder if the information was as described in the paragraph above, but it likely wouldn't legally be murder.
(Note to Tom: I would consider this an impeachable offense without SCOTUS evaluating it.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Recklessness is the intentional disregard of a known risk. Careful consideration is perfectly consistent with such recklessness, and, in fact, helps establish the "known" portion of the element.
I see nowhere where the risk is being disregarded. Rather, it is evaluated against benefits that, in this analysis, outweigh it.
This is not "Well, people might die, but I can't be concerned about that." Rather it's, "I am going to be sacrificing these people for the greater good."
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Okay, I'll toss another question into the mix:
If Bush was cognizantly lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, then he had to have known none would be found there. When he embedded the media in with the troops at the start of the invasion, why didn't he plant WMDs for his troops and reporters to "find"?
In other words, if you're going to invent fictitious reasons to fight a fictitious war, why not fabricate fictitious justification, so you don't end up with not-so-fictitious egg on your face?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Recklessness is the intentional disregard of a known risk. Careful consideration is perfectly consistent with such recklessness, and, in fact, helps establish the "known" portion of the element.
I see no where where the risk is being disregarded. Rather, it is evaluated against benefits that, in this analysis, outweigh it.
This is not "Well, people might die, but I can't be concerned about that." Rather it's, "I am going to be sacrificing these people for the greater good."
That would go to a justification defense, not to extreme recklessness amounting to malice as an element of murder.
"Disregard" in this sense means "acting in such a way that the risk occurs." Here, acting (or failing to act, which is a critical and likely dispositive distinction), carried with it the specific risk of hundreds or thousands of deaths (assuming the information was as I posited above). Therefore, disregarding a known risk element is satisfied.
There is an "unreasonable" element to the risk - it has to be "unreasonable" to take the risk. But this goes to the chances of the risk happening in the circumstances, not to good that may arise from the act. For example, every time you drive there's some chance you will get in a fatal wreck. Even though this is a known risk, it's not unreasonable. In more extreme cases, firing at a person with a hostage but hitting the hostage by mistake wouldn't be reckless if certain procedures were followed, and this would arise in part from the danger to the hostage posed by the hostage-taker.
But there are two key differences: 1) It's the risk of death that was worth the outcome in the hostage shooting, not the death itself. 2) The death did not serve the purposes of the hostage-taker-shooter. Here, the death serves the purposes being attributed to Bush.
You can't defeat the malice element of a murder charge arising from your spraying machine gun fire into a crowd by saying, "I knew it was very likely someone would be killed, but I thought that the benefit of X outweighed the deaths."
Depending on what X is, you might succeed in a justification defense. But you wouldn't succeed in disproving the malice element based on your consideration.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If Bush was cognizantly lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, then he had to have known none would be found there.
I don't think you understand the accusations of lying. The lies weren't generally about saying that there were WMD or WMD-components when they knew that there weren't (although they did that too in specific cases, like the aluminum tubes or the "mobile germ warfare labs"). Rather, it was telling the American public that they knew that Iraq had WMDs and programs to hide the WMDs, when in fact they didn't know anything of the sort.
I was completely convinced by Colin Powell's presentation and was a strong proponent of the war in light of the imminent/near-imminent threat posed by their characterization of Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs. I thought particularly damning was the evidence of a widespread cmapaign to hide these weapons and components from U.N. inspectors (which, as there were no weapons, appear now to have been taken wildly out of context and/or fabricated). I took people to task for saying that, without listening or reading transcripts of the speech, that they were presenting lies and falsehoods.
Later, I had to go around to these same people and appologize for believing that my government would not tell me bald-faced lies about what they knew about a matter of such grave importance and with such long term ramifications.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It seems to me that you are interested in this Dag, but I don't see how you've remained tied to anything that has been previously discussed. Are you going off on a tangent here or is this tied to Rakeesh's repeated claism that MC called Bush the type of person who who be a mass murderer? If the latter, could you explain how?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you going off on a tangent here or is this tied to Rakeesh's repeated claism that MC called Bush the type of person who who be a mass murderer? If the latter, could you explain how?
It's not a tangent - I've addressed specific legal reasoning raised by both you and Rakeesh, and then addressed the issues that I think control the legal determination.
Your comments concerning recklessness as used in the malice element of murder are erroneous. Your overall conclusion, however, is most likely correct.
My opinion on the Squicky/Rakeesh/MC dispute is summed up in a post above, requoted for convenience:
quote:In short, the omission of disregarding specific information that would have led to stopping 9/11 is almost certainly recklessness enough to qualify for malice, but the omission is likely not an adequate predicate for murder, either because no legal duty was breached or an intervening act was the cause of death.
I'd consider it the moral equivalent of murder if the information was as described in the paragraph above, but it likely wouldn't legally be murder.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
errr...who's talking about legal reasoning, besides you?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
When we are tossing around ideas like calling the president a murderer, I think it's helpful to be careful in saying exactly what that must entail.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Who is tossing this idea around, besides Rakeesh?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
errr...first Rakeesh, then you. You know, when you started arguing about whether something qualifies as "murder"?
Posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with "malice aforethought." The element of malice aforethought can be satisfied by an intentional killing, which is considered express malice. Malice can also be implied: deaths that occur by extreme recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be express malice murders. The maximum penalty for murder is usually life imprisonment, and in jurisdictions with capital punishment, the death penalty may be imposed. As with most legal terms, the precise definition varies between jurisdictions. Unlawful killings without malice are considered manslaughter.
This is a legal definition of murder. You then said this:
quote:No. Not in the slightest. edit: In that instance, based on the characterization that you gave, the decision would have been made with careful deliberation, which is the opposite of recklessness.
And besides, even if it were, you still wouldn't be meeting the definition of murder you posted, as you couldn't imply malice from that specific recklessness.
You were talking about the legal definition that Rakeesh posted. You were applying lay definitions of common words to a context in which the words are terms of art.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Err...where did Rakesh detail that he was talking about a legal context? And, in such, there are plenty of other elements that aren't met that makes this a moot point.
Actually, as far as I can tell, your usage of recklessness wouldn't apply in this situation on a charge of murder no matter what. Could you show my why you think it would?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Err...where did Rakesh detail that he was talking about a legal context?
Err...where he quoted the wikipedia article containing the legal definition of "murder," which I've now requoted for you, and then applied the legal principles outlined in that article to the case at hand.
He didn't say he was performing legal reasoning, but he was. You then disagreed with the way he applied the facts to the word "reckless."
quote:As far as I can tell, your usage of recklessness wouldn't apply in this situation on a charge of murder.
Yes, it would, based on the legal reasoning I've outlined here. If you attempt to explain why not, you will be engaging in legal reasoning.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thanks for the technical analysis, Lavalamp.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, as far as I can tell, your usage of recklessness wouldn't apply in this situation on a charge of murder no matter what. Could you show my why you think it would?
Are you kidding me? I've just spent a good amount of time doing so. If you care to explain where you think my explanation fails, I'll be happy to answer questions.
Here are the relevant parts:
quote: Recklessness is the intentional disregard of a known risk. Careful consideration is perfectly consistent with such recklessness, and, in fact, helps establish the "known" portion of the element.
I think the recklessness here would be sufficient to prove malice if the information in the president's hands was reliable and definite concerning the attack and would have made it almost certain that the attack could have been thwarted. It's at least equivalent to "depraved indifference". Malice would not be the difficult element to prove here.
And then, in response to a specific point by you:
quote:"Disregard" in this sense means "acting in such a way that the risk occurs." Here, acting (or failing to act, which is a critical and likely dispositive distinction), carried with it the specific risk of hundreds or thousands of deaths (assuming the information was as I posited above). Therefore, disregarding a known risk element is satisfied.
There is an "unreasonable" element to the risk - it has to be "unreasonable" to take the risk. But this goes to the chances of the risk happening in the circumstances, not to good that may arise from the act. For example, every time you drive there's some chance you will get in a fatal wreck. Even though this is a known risk, it's not unreasonable. In more extreme cases, firing at a person with a hostage but hitting the hostage by mistake wouldn't be reckless if certain procedures were followed, and this would arise in part from the danger to the hostage posed by the hostage-taker.
But there are two key differences: 1) It's the risk of death that was worth the outcome in the hostage shooting, not the death itself. 2) The death did not serve the purposes of the hostage-taker-shooter. Here, the death serves the purposes being attributed to Bush.
You can't defeat the malice element of a murder charge arising from your spraying machine gun fire into a crowd by saying, "I knew it was very likely someone would be killed, but I thought that the benefit of X outweighed the deaths."
Depending on what X is, you might succeed in a justification defense. But you wouldn't succeed in disproving the malice element based on your consideration.
At that point, you began questioning me about why I was posting, so you haven't responded to that, other than to say "as far as I can tell, your usage of recklessness wouldn't apply in this situation on a charge of murder no matter what."
That's not exactly an adequate response to a screen and a half of explanation. If you want to leave it there, fine. If you want me to answer, you'll need to provide some specific criticism.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:where he quoted the wikipedia article containing the legal definition of "murder,"
That doesn't seem sufficient to me to move us into the legal realm and outside of the real life realm without some sotr of note that this is what he was doing. It may to you, but then you're a lawyer.
However, as has been covered, it would be incorrect to do so because the complete legal definition of murder isn't met here.
---
The examples I can find of recklessness being used in a legal manner center around negligence. I can't find any that deal with murder. Could you provide some? Legal terms are, of neceesity, very limited things and from what I can see, I can find no reason why it would apply in this particular case.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Extreme recklessness. The common law recognized as the equivalent of an intent to kill an attitude of extreme recklessness toward the life of others. One whose conduct displayed plain disregard for a substantial, unjustified risk to human life was guilty of murder if his conduct caused a death. Various formulas have been used to describe this category of malice aforethought, including phases such as "a depraved mind regardless of human life," "an abandoned and malignant heart," and "a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief." Whatever formula is used, the key elements are that the actor's conduct perceptibly creates a very large risk that someone will be killed, which he ignores without adequate justification. The risk must be large, and it must be evident; there must also not be circumstances that make it reasonable to impose such risk on others. It is not necessary that the actor be aware of the identity of the person or persons whose life he endangers or that he have any desire that they be killed. The Model Penal Code sums this up in a requirement of recklessness "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life" (§ 210.2 (1)(b)).
The scope of this category of murder evidently depends considerably on how "extreme" the actor's conduct has to be. Properly limited, the category includes only conduct about which it might be fairly said that the actor "as good as" intended to kill his victim and displayed the same unwillingness to prefer the life of another person to his own objectives. Examples of such conduct, which have been the basis of convictions for murder, are firing a gun into a moving vehicle or an occupied house, firing in the direction of a group of persons, and failing to feed an infant while knowing that it was starving to death. Expanded much beyond cases of this kind, the category might include conduct involving a high degree of carelessness or recklessness that is nevertheless distinct from an intent to kill and more properly included within some lesser category of homicide.
Note that failing to feed a starving infant (an omission as opposed to an act) can qualify, because the person knows an infant not fed will die.
Here, it would depend on the quality and reliability of the information the President had concerning the attacks. If it were specific enough that intervention would have stopped it, then not intervening creates the same type of risk as not feeding the infant.
Again, for other reasons, I don't think murder charges will lie.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The Model Penal Code sums this up in a requirement of recklessness "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life"
quote:The scope of this category of murder evidently depends considerably on how "extreme" the actor's conduct has to be. Properly limited, the category includes only conduct about which it might be fairly said that the actor "as good as" intended to kill his victim and displayed the same unwillingness to prefer the life of another person to his own objectives. Examples of such conduct, which have been the basis of convictions for murder, are firing a gun into a moving vehicle or an occupied house, firing in the direction of a group of persons, and failing to feed an infant while knowing that it was starving to death.
quote:Expanded much beyond cases of this kind, the category might include conduct involving a high degree of carelessness or recklessness that is nevertheless distinct from an intent to kill and more properly included within some lesser category of homicide.
See, these sections very clearly dispute your application to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The Model Penal Code sums this up in a requirement of recklessness "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life"
quote:Expanded much beyond cases of this kind, the category might include conduct involving a high degree of carelessness or recklessness that is nevertheless distinct from an intent to kill and more properly included within some lesser category of homicide.
See, these sections dispute your application to me.
It depends entirely on the amount and type of information he had, a qualification I have consistently included.
If he knew the exact planes, the names of the terrorists, where they were sleeping the night before, and the intent to crash the planes into the towers, then it is extreme indifference to human life. He could have acted in a way that was guaranteed to save the lives of all the passengers and the people in the towers.
Regardless, my original objection was to your statement that careful deliberation, in and of itself, was enough to disprove recklessness: "the decision would have been made with careful deliberation, which is the opposite of recklessness."
That statement is quite simply wrong in this context, for reasons I have explained.
That doesn't mean it would have been reckless. As I have said many times now, there are distinct factual issues that would be relevant to the determination.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If he knew the exact planes, the names of the terrorists, where they were sleeping the night before, and the intent to crash the planes into the towers, then it is extreme indifference to human life.
Is there a specific legal defintion of indifference that I'm not getting? Because by my admittedly common use definitions, that qualification doesn't make sense. It is entirely possible to know exactly what was going to happen but still allow it to happen to while not being indifferent to the negative effects. It may be that you are allowing things that you would like to prevent in order to achieve a greater good.
The Allies allowing German bombings so as not to give away that they had broken Enigma is a good example of this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is there a specific legal defintion of indifference that I'm not getting? Because by my admittedly common use definitions, that qualification doesn't make sense. It is entirely possible to know exactly what was going to happen but still allow it to happen to while not being indifferent to the negative effects.
It has nothing to do with how they feel about the deaths. Indifference is the decision to proceed with one's act or omission in the knowledge that the deaths are very likely to occur. In other words, the fact that deaths will occur does not influence one's decision: in the context of the decision, one is indifferent to the deaths.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
In searching for that, I found an illuminating case that I think very strongly disputes what you are saying:
quote:To cross into criminal behavior, Williams must have gone beyond negligence to recklessness. Recklessness, under New Jersey law, means that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk. To win a manslaughter conviction, which brings five to 10 years in prison, prosecutors must convince jurors that Williams understood that playing with the gun posed a substantial risk to the driver and then chose to proceed anyhow.
An aggravated manslaughter conviction, which could land Williams in prison for 10 to 30 years, requires the higher standard: His behavior must be so reckless as to show "an extreme indifference to human life."
The difference between regular and aggravated manslaughter is often described as the difference between possible and probable. If what the defendant did — killing someone while firing into a crowded building, for example — created a probability of death, it is aggravated manslaughter. If death was only a possibility — striking a passerby while taking backyard target practice — the charge is manslaughter.
New Jersey prosecutor Robert Honecker Jr. distinguished between the two levels of culpability by offering the example of a drunk driver. If the driver kills someone with his car on the way home from a bar, he shows recklessness. If he kills someone while driving the wrong way on a highway at 100 mph with no headlights on, he shows an extreme indifference to human life.
To establish "extreme indifference," the prosecution will almost certainly concentrate on Williams' actions after the shooting. Some witnesses told police Williams seemed concerned for Christofi by begging someone to do CPR and pleading with the dying man to hang on for medical attention. But others said that as Christofi lay dead, Williams, who had a lucrative career as a sports announcer, was primarily concerned about the shooting's effect on his work. And houseguests are expected to testify that Williams manhandled Christofi's dead body to recreate the crime scene as a suicide and coerced others into helping by hiding his own clothes and lying to police.
In this case, "extreme indifference" moves it to maybe aggravated manslaughter. Murder doesn't enter into it.
Also, the definition used for indifference rests on more than the influence of the decision. The defendant's actions after the action is offered as relevant to whether or not he is indifferent, i.e. whether he cared about what he did.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
I realize that the prior mention of "civilian deaths" was talking about American civilians, but it is at least worth noting that this Administration has in fact and indeed decided that Iraqi civilian deaths are worthwhile in the pursuit of the greater good.
It's one of the facts of war that make it a moral judgment in addition to one of safety or security.
In this particular instance, the morality of the decision is questionable, at best.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In this case, "extreme indifference" moves it to maybe aggravated manslaughter. Murder doesn't enter into it.
Aggravated manslaughter is a newer innovation adopted by relatively few states. New Jersey still had extreme indifference murder in 1968.
Further, NJ's aggravated manslaughter is seen as the direct corallary to NY's "depraved mind murder" (can't link, see N.J. v. Grunow, 102 N.J. 133 (1986)):
quote:New York has an offense, similar to aggravated manslaughter, characterized as "depraved mind murder," which is murder in the second degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25(2); the element of mental culpability required to establish depraved mind murder is recklessness.
Based on a search for the phrase in cases going back at least 20 years in all states, only New Jersey, Florida, Alaska, New York, and Virginia have a crime by that name (and Virginia, at least, still has a recklessness/indifference form of murder as well).
quote:Also, the definition used for indifference rests on more than the influence of the decision. The defendant's actions after the action is offered as relevant to whether or not he is indifferent, i.e. whether he cared about what he did.
In NJ, the difference between aggravated manslaughter (which is recklessness plus extreme indifference to human life) and reckless manslaughter (which does not have the indifference element) is based on the likelihood of death occurring (N.J. v. Mendez, 252 N.J.Super. 155 (1991)):
quote:To establish guilt of either aggravated manslaughter or reckless manslaughter, the State must prove that the defendant recklessly caused the death of another human being. N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a and b(1). Aggravated manslaughter requires proof of the additional element that defendant acted "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life." N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a. State v. Curtis, 195 N.J.Super. 354, 363, 479 A.2d 425 (App.Div.1984), certif. denied, 99 N.J. 212, 491 A.2d 708 (1984), we held that the only difference between aggravated manslaughter and reckless manslaughter is "the difference in the degree of the risk that death will result from defendant's conduct." The degree of risk required for reckless manslaughter is "a mere possibility of death" while the "additional element" in aggravated manslaughter that "death be caused 'under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life' elevates the risk level from a mere possibility to a probability." Ibid. State v. Grunow, 102 N.J. 133, 506 A.2d 708 (1988), the Supreme Court adopted this view of the difference between aggravated manslaughter and reckless manslaughter, citing Curtis for the proposition that "[t]he Legislature recognized a single concept of reckless homicide that constituted manslaughter, with the gradation of punishment based upon the degree of risk of death." 102 N.J. at 143, 506 A.2d 708.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, the definition used for indifference rests on more than the influence of the decision. The defendant's actions after the action is offered as relevant to whether or not he is indifferent, i.e. whether he cared about what he did.
Even more dispositive is N.J. v. Bakka, 176 N.J. 533 (2003), upholding a conviction based on this jury instruction:
quote:The phrase under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life does not focus on the defendant's state of mind but rather on the circumstances under which you find he acted. If, in light of all of the evidence, you find that defendant's conduct resulted in a probability as opposed to a mere possibility of death, then you may find that he acted under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life. On the other hand, if you find his conduct resulted in only a possibility of death, then you must acquit him of aggravated manslaughter.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Thank you for that Dag. That was pretty interesting. I cheerfully agree that you appear correct and that the legal definition of these terms seem very different from the commonly used ones.
Ultimately, I think Rakeesh's accusations remain absurd.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You just can't resist getting a dig in, can you?
*shrug* Murder is a subjective term, as I've stated repeatedly, Mr. Squicky. To me, letting people die when you have a duty to protect them and could have stopped it is murder, even if in pursuit of the greater good-when letting it happen is that greater good. Perhaps not 1st degree murder, but still murder.
And yes, I do believe that leaders are forced to make decisions like that. Many of our greatest leaders have been, by my own lights, murderers to some extent or another.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It seems to me, by your personal definition of the term, that being a murderer isn't necessarily a horrible thing then. Why would calling someone a murderer in and of itself be so bad?
Also, in light of what LL brought up in regards to the Iraqi civilians, wouldn't, by your lights, you consider President Bush a murderer?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, if you were only talking in regards to your own, personal definition of the term, the time to note that would be when people first take exception to it. I assumed that you were talking about some sort of common definition of it. This impression was strengthened when you brought in outside sources that, while they didn't support what you were saying, were concerning shared contexts.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Colbert talks about a book that makes a judicial case vs Bush.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm sorry for the "getting a dig" remark, that was uncalled for.
-------------
quote:It seems to me, by your personal definition of the term, that being a murderer isn't necessarily a horrible thing then. Why would calling someone a murderer in and of itself be so bad?
Also, in light of what LL brought up in regards to the Iraqi civilians, wouldn't, by your lights, you consider President Bush a murderer?
I wouldn't say that (to your first question). There's the difference between better and best, and bad and worse. In some cases, you don't have an option to choose between good and bad, but only between bad and worse.
As for why it would be so bad here, because clearly MightyCow doesn't think that the choices were between bad and worse, but rather between good and bad.
As for whether or not I would consider President Bush a murderer on those grounds...I'm uncertain, leaning towards 'no'. It all comes back to how much one thinks the President knew, or could reasonable have been expected to know, prior to this war. Seeing as how we're in Iraq (in my opinion) at least partially on the Iraqis' account, no, the death of civilians in military operations alone does not make those responsible for them (either directly or indirectly) murderers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd say it's very likely that Bush himself knew something was in the works, and probably Condi Rice and other subordinates knew a great deal more, but I don't think they knew enough to stop it outright, though, maybe if they had taken the threat more seriously they could have. We'll never know.
I don't think he would really go through all that, letting thousands die in such a manner. But I do think he was willfully ignorant and careless.
edited for typo/clarity
[ May 18, 2007, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
See, now that belief I consider pretty damn reasonable, Lyrhawn. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it doesn't assume that the President is a mustachioed villain, either.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Do I need to prove to you that the sky is blue or are you gonna quibble that its really a prism of colours based on the angle of light hitting the atmosphere.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)