Using The "Dennis Standard" To Determine Bill Ayres' Innocence

According to Dennis Marks, the ICC hasn't prosecuted ex-preznit bush as a war criminal because the case "was not worthy of handling [and] beneath contempt". Dennis says the case was "ignored by the authorities because it's all bogus". Not only that, but they laughed when charges were submitted for consideration and decreed that bush is "so innocent". The decree wasn't an actual decree, but one we can guess they would have made if the court released statements regarding why they reject cases.

Or that is what Dennis guesses, at least. And he thinks we should all guess the same. If a court stays silent when members of the public say criminal action should be prosecuted, the ONLY conclusion one can possibly reach is that the charges are without merit... even though Dennis lies when he says the ICC has been silent.

The (now former) first Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno Ocampo has said the reason charges haven't been considered in the case of (now ex) preznit bush is because "I am not the world's prosecutor. I am the prosecutor for 118 (treaty member) states".

Charges against bush have been filed, and those charges have been rejected by the court - but the reason has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of evidence or bush being "so innocent". The charges were rejected because the United States has not signed the treaty that created the court - and ONLY countries that sign the treaty are subject to it's jurisdiction.

All Dennis' explanations regarding why the court hasn't acted are nothing more than pure delusion. For the record, however, Dennis did (amazingly) walk back his "innocence" claims a little recently... when he said "The real authorities on this, the International Criminal Court, have to date rejected 130 petitions/claims of Bush being a war criminal due to complete lack of evidence. This is not proof of innocence, of course, but it is overwhelming proof that there is no case against Bush to be made".

So, that got me thinking... Dennis has recently made statements concerning the criminality of Bill Ayres actions during the Vietnam war... but Ayres was never convicted of any wrongdoing. He was charged, but the charges were dropped. Maybe the court dropped the charges because Ayres was "so innocent" that the very notion of going forward with a trial caused the judges to laugh?

Turns out the answer to that question is "no". Charges against Ayres were dropped because "FBI operations targeted against Weather Underground and the New Left, all part of a series of covert and often illegal FBI projects called COINTEL". When your case against a person includes you doing illegal stuff to obtain evidence... those cases get thrown out. So, Ayres was guilty and should have gone to prison... but he lucked out due to the illegality of the FBI investigation.

Still, the case was thrown out. Just like the case against ex-preznit bush. Both Ayres and bush are free men today. So, perhaps the correct conclusion isn't that Ayres was guilty but got away with it (like bush), but that the charges were "all bogus" and therefore Ayres is completely innocent? He never made or set any bombs. The book he wrote admitting these things should be assumed to be a work of fiction. That is my conclusion, in any case. Not my actual conclusion, but my conclusion using the "Dennis Standard" of determining innocence.

TADM #9