Check out this Evidence law hypothetical. Think of Iraq war and it is clear Bush and company can be found guilty for deaths for every Iraq that was killed due to American invasion:

Osama Bin laden is charged with murdering Yasser Arafat by fatally knifing him while they were having drinks in a bar. Osama claims self-defense, asserting that he believed that Yasser was about to detonate a suicide bomb that would have killed them both. To bolster this defense, Osama introduces evidense that Yasser had a reputation for violence. The prosecution now seeks to introduce evidence that Osama, too, had a reputation for violence, in the form of a reputation for advocating the principle that "If you have even the slightest inkling that the other guy is thinking of killing you, kill him first." Under modern rules, is the prosecution's evidence admissible?


Answer:

Yes, modern rules were amended in 2000 to say that if an accused successfully offers evidence of "a trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime," the prosecution is permitted to offer evidence of "the same trait of character of the accused." So once Osama "or Bush" put in evidence that Yasser "or Saddam" had a reputation for violence, the prosecution was entitled to show that Osama "or Bush" had a reputation for the "same trait of character." violence.

It would depend on how you define murder. If you define it the was my dictionary does then no you can't call them murders.

Now all the new people can see why Big got the boot off themat forum.

big, maybe you should go back to your beloved russia where all the leaders are honest and never make a mistake

Originally Posted by wrestlingnut86

big, maybe you should go back to your beloved russia where all the leaders are honest and never make a mistake

This argument never works