FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Majority of Dems: Bush Could Have Known About 9/11 (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Majority of Dems: Bush Could Have Known About 9/11
Adam_S
Member
Member # 9695

 - posted      Profile for Adam_S   Email Adam_S         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
I am very sad when utter crap like loose change starts getting taken seriously by such large portions of the populace.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lavalamp
Member
Member # 4337

 - posted      Profile for Lavalamp           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
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." [Frown]
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.

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

There's my point already.

And yes, if national leaders make military decisions for other than military reasons, it can be called murder. It's been done before.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh,
What does that have to do with anything MC said? Could you make the connection explict? Because I don't see one.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.)

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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."

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
docmagik
Member
Member # 1131

 - posted      Profile for docmagik   Email docmagik         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.


Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
errr...who's talking about legal reasoning, besides you?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Who is tossing this idea around, besides Rakeesh?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for the technical analysis, Lavalamp.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Here's a good summary:

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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lavalamp
Member
Member # 4337

 - posted      Profile for Lavalamp           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.colbertondemand.com/videos/Spur_of_The_Moment/Case_Closed

Colbert talks about a book that makes a judicial case vs Bush.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2