Remember also that Congress was told that Saddam Hussein had all kinds of terrible weapons of mass destruction, and that he was ready to use them.

It's not complicated. It's only one syllable. It should be simple enough even for you.

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Jarober, what "applicable US law" states that the President can attack another country based on false or fabricated information. There were no weapons of mass destruction, yet throughout the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" this is offered as a prime justification for attacking Iraq. Not to mention that bull about "members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq".

Better than your desire to let murderers off the hook because you just might feel like murdering someone in future.

You have a serious problem, jarober. The problem itself is making you unable to comprehend that you have a problem.

I am not qualified to, nor am I am able to, cure your problem in this discussion. There is nothing that I can do for you.

Engaging you is exacerbating your problem. I apologize for doing so.

Get help, jarober. The fact that you cannot see any reason to is the main reason you need to.

But wait... That means we have to assune his innocence.... and if we don't then you must be against any trial, just as you claim to be against Gitmo, etc. Must uphold the standards, eh?

My first post after the results were known was congratulations to "friendly enemies." I was wrong in using the world "friendly" to many, way too many on the Left.

Hate. That's all the Left brings to the table. As the days go by I am more and more reminded of the French Revolution.

You are, of course, free to require whatever credentials you like. Keep in mind, however, that you get what you pay for.

I chose the Rome standard because one of the other commenters mentioned trying Rumsfeld in Germany. Since Germany itself has applied different doctrines of command responsibility, I chose the standard which Germany has joined that would be most likely to lead to a conviction: the Rome standard of the ICC.

As far as the other standards go, they differ in the level of mens rea required of the commander. The Rome standard is the most liberal because it adopts the "should have known" standard, rather than the more common: "knowledge, actual or constructive." Under the later standard, there is generally little or no requirement on a commander that he take affirmative action to keep himself informed as to the activities of his subordinates.

The standard least likely to convict is the so-called "Howard Standard" named for and used by the judge in the Vietnam-era Medina case. There, the judge required that Medina (the commander) (1) have actual knowledge that subordinates were in the process of committing or about to commit atrocities; and (2)failed to take steps to avoid or end the attrocities.

It's noteworthy, however, that this was a US court-martial. None of the big war crimes tribunals have used a standard this restrictive. For what it's worth, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia uses a standard somewhere in the middle; when it comes to the mens rea requirement to convict they must show that the commander knew or had reason to know of the war crimes or attrocities.

All of this talk of mens rea is besides the point, I think. Every single standard includes some "defense" component that requires that after the commander had (or should have had) the knowledge of attrocities he do nothing about them.