rating that they were all involved in the planning is not enough. It must also be shown that their acts were done with the intent that they succeed in waging aggressive war. This count of the indictment would therefore be the most difficult to prove.
Count two of the indictment cites the actual overt act of waging aggressive war. Whereas count one charged that there was a common plan, count two charges that there was planning and engaging in the plan in order that it may be completed. The same evidence was introduced to prove both of these counts, since the acts themselves were essential in proving the existence of a common plan.
In order to prove specific intent with respect to the above charges, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendants acted with knowledge, and purposefully, since this will show that there was intent to do something beyond the actus reus. Furthermore, they must demonstrate that the defendants acted in such a manner with respect to each and every element of the aforementioned crimes.
For example, in regards to the crime charged in count one of the indictment, the elements of the crime can be summarized as follows:
A person is guilty of conspiracy to wage aggressive war if he:
i. Plans, prepares, initiates, or wages a war of aggression
ii. Plans, prepares, initiates, or wages a war that is in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances
iii. Participates in a common plan or conspiracy to wage EITHER
an aggressive war OR a war that is in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances
2. His purpose in such participation is to further the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.
So while in a general intent crime, the burden of proof would include only the first three circumstances listed under element number one, a specific intent crime adds the second element to the burden of proof, and requires that it be shown what the defendants intended to occur a...