Wouldn't the DA of, say, Manhattan or San Francisco have standing, based on the death of their residents in Iraq, to bring charges of Treason before a Grand Jury for knowingly beginning a war on false premises?  Or at least 2nd Degree Murder or Manslaughter?
208472
I'm no lawyer, and I know very little about the American justice system, but I doubt a DA can bring charges of Treason against our old friend* George W. Bush.\n\n\n*By friend, I mean scum-sucking peon.
313162
Dear Friend,\n\nThe truth is an absolute defense to charges of libel.  Sometimes telling the truth about your murderous government is the way to honor your beloved country.  Why don't we cast you in a re-enactment of Abu Grahib for a few weeks and see how YOU feel about treatment of Iraqis?\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
420508
International law - no grounds for it.\n\nA stronger case could be made for treason trials for several Democratic leaders.  Are you in?
336437
Unfortunately in the eyes of the law its murder....but it should be justifiable,Just as Bush justifies every law hes broken, every lie hes told to turn it around and say its it our countries best interest... I should also add its justifed when your property or life depends on it.  That goes for many other circumstances well apart from the borders of this country.
579524
Too many innocent people would be killed, and most of us (though NOT the eminent-domain-using New York Times!) still care about human life.  No, they should be prosecuted as traitors and made to serve their debt to society--in prison.  Perhaps Gitmo.  And I have no problem if Momo Dowd has to wear underwear on her head, lol...
187237
I agree with you, it is hard to imagine Americans needing more evidence than that to retaliate. I think not only should we retaliate, we should do it harder. American soldiers know what they are doing when they enlist, they are putting their lives on the line to keep things like 9/11 from happening.Remember Pearl Harbor? Japan will think twice next time. We should never allow anyone to attack our civilians. A show of force may deter the next guy on the list from doing the same.
657554
When you go to invade a country and kill a local soldier trying to kill you (defending his country - is job) would you call what you do self-defense?  If you kill a civilian trying to do the same (you are his enemy) would not that be murdering people?  \nIf Bush sent Americans to any country for invasion (his hobby) did they go of their own accord or is it compulsory?  I mean if  they joined the army for financial reasons or bright-career-factor knowing that they will be killing people who did not come to their door to kill them, then they are murderers.\nI agree with you, no thing is called self-defense if you go to a place trying to take charge and kill resistance.  Bush could have killed Saddam if he REALLY wanted to free Iraq of this devil, but he chose to destroy the whole country instead.
355152
The whole thing is very tragic. It's way to early to tell what happened. I do know that when Officers have made the desicion to use deadly force, they are trained to fire until the threat is neutralized, no matter if it takes one bullet or several hundred. A vehicle attempting to run down an Officer would be justification for the use of deadly force. Like I have said though, this is too early to tell and no one should make any "Knee Jerk" judgements until all the evidence is in and the investigation is complete.
341580
No, there are some Conservatives, like me.  Habeas Corpus is one of the most important parts of our legal system, it leads to innocent until proven guilty.  It was one of the reasons I voted for a moderate democrat.  I agree with part of the legislation that enemy combatants should not be tried publicly, but this suspension of habeas corpus is a violation of individual rights.\n\nHow about this scenario?  If you are associated with someone that the government merely suspects of terrorist activities, they can use the law to imprison you, until you produce evidence that indicates your associates of the activities.  It can be used as a new form of McCarthyism.  Until you produce they evidence we want, right or wrong, you can be held.  Guilty until you prove yourself innocent or prove someone else guilty.  Basically, unconstitutional.\n\nAnd some people say, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, but that is not a good comparison.  The Civil War would have ended, sometime, but the "War on Terror" is indefinite.  They have suspended one of our rights, indefinitely.  And the reason I am against it is I am a conservative, who believes in the Constitution, unlike some Republicans.
423709
No it's not unreasonable.  They should be prosecuted to the extend of the law, by a jury of their peers and penalized like all of us.  I came years ago from a foreign country and I respect the USA.  That's why I learn English as soon as I came here.  "When you are in Rome, you do as the Romans do."
518185
NO\n\nWE SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN IN IRAQ,\n\nBUSH LIED..\nLET HIM BE CHARGED.\n\nTHEY SHOULD HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE DEATHS.
119018
Saddam committed his alleged crimes within the boundaries of Iraq and should be subject to Iraqi justice if indeed he is found to be guilty.  I have believed all along that the Iraqi people are the ones that need to handle whatever is to be Saddam's fate.  \n\nIn view of the controversy surrounding the death of Slobodan Milosevic, I am a lot more comfortable that Saddam will receive actual justice and we will not have to worry about this kind of thing putting a cloud over the whole thing.
220123
I can't speak for other American citizens, but here is what I have observed. I am too old to learn anything new, only confirm what I have known, or believed.\n1) our fereral government only knows how to react. Not to prevent.\n2) In our country, out of disaster, rises greed.\n3) Our federal government, state government and local government officials will never do the will of the common people, only the will of the rich people.\n4) Our mislead soldiers, sailors and marines have been duped again, into believing that they are defending freedom. What they are doing is defending an illusion. The illusion that the united states knows what is best for the world. They are spreading a belief. The department of defense should be defending. That is why it is not called the department of offense\n5) I agree that the perps of 9/11 should be brought to justice. Lets find them and bring them to justice already.\nThat would be justified, but that other stuff (Iraq) is based on one thing (refer to statement 3).
277504
No bub\n\nIt is a huge crime to lie under oath (since YOU brought up Clinton). It is known as perjury.\n\nWar is not murdering innocents. In war you kill your enemies, you defeat them. In war, there is also no way to protect every non-combatant. There is no "perfect" war where only soldiers will be involved. And even with there being no possibility of a "perfect war", it does not mean that we should never wage war. We should wage war when necessary. And when it came down to attacking Afghanistan, and re-opening the hostilities in Iraq because of the documented cease-fire violations from the cease-fire agreement from Gulf War I (Desert Storm), the war was J-U-S-T-I-F-I-E-D
536272
I agree with the second guy. There is no way to charge Bush with a war crime (and I believe that crimes against humanity is a war crime) because of some international legal bullsh'it. I can't remember how it goes since it gets a little complicated, but bottom line, it can't be filed.\n\nGermany's going in the right direction though. They filed criminal charges against Rumsfeld but can't try him. All this is to create a precedent against Bush and his cronies. Good job, Germany.
76464
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and many other right wing zealots in the U.S. government have conspired to wage an illegal war of aggression against Iraq, kidnap and torture civilians around the world, attack civilians and medical facilities in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. These crimes violate U.S. law, the U.S. Constitution, the Hague and Geneva conventions and other treaties and conventions.\n\nThere is no question that the U.S. is responsible for war crimes, the question is who will stand up to the Bush Adminstration. Who can question the U.S.? No politician will speak out. No court will take the case. No international organization is willing to challenge the U.S. No other nation dares to risk retribution from the U.S. government by even raising the issue.\n\nOnly the people can challenge these crimes. Only by raising a public hue and cry so loud that the issue cannot be politely ignored will this horrific crime spree be stopped.
258660
The constitution requires that federal prosecutions for "capital or infamous crimes" be indicted upon the recommendation of a grand jury. The grand jury hears evidence and determines whether there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. Grand jury indictments have a lower burden of proof than the actual trial, and a grand jury rarely fails to indict as a prosecutor wishes. Many states also have grand juries, but they are not required. The idea behind them is that serious crimes are too important to let prosecutors commence at will.