You can charge them with murder all you like, but while brandishing as control is considered standard police practice, you will find it almost impossible to prove any intent.
Some politicians are guilty of mass murder and war crimes under exactly the circumstance you give. And part of the reason those from more powerful countries are not charged is they have made every effort to put themselves above international law. For instance, Bush Jr signed the Hague Invasion Act - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... - to guard against this very risk.
edit - And in your second scenario, that would be negligence causing a homicide. It wouldn't be murder unless there was an intent to kill the hostage.
They both killed the guy. The guy lied with the intent to get heavily armed people to point guns at someone. Anyone who does this and tries to claim that they couldn't possibly know that the risk is deadly, is either lying or lacks basic reasoning skills.
Making the Japanese and Nigerian elite look bad, could be a large part of the intent here. That $76M might mainly be a political comment.
In perspective, oil and gas companies spend more than double that lobbying the US government every year and in Mayfair in London, a house went on sale last year for $120M.
I come from somewhere where the opposite of that is the dominant culture, so I was explaining Crocker's rules as a method of us pointing out to each other when we are not capable of operating by them, rather than when we are. I had a bad head cold and was trying to work out a diplomatic method to get them to chill out a little. It half worked, some of the time.
It isn't about calling someone a moron, it is about being able to respond, "Thanks, I can be fucking stupid at times, can you show me where I am being moronic here?".
It is also about being able top unguard your own language should you know that the other person is operating by the rules, not to be insulting, but so to not worry about it for that conversation and so not having to run that whole level of extra processing.
I tend to swear a lot, as do most of the people I both work and socialise with. If I were to work with people of a more delicate sensibility, conversations would take a lot longer.
More Silicon Glen, if you really care about origin stories. My family tends to conduct a lot of discussion at full volume with lots of swearing, so being able to say, 'fuck off, not playing by Crocker's rules', is pretty useful.
I showed 'Crockers Rules', after Lee Daniel Crocker, to my mum and my sister over Christmas, as I thought it might help all of us indicate the level of acerbic comment we are currently able to process.
"Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being nice to you. Crocker's Rules means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind - if you're offended, it's your fault. Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor. (Which, in point of fact, they would be. One of the big problems with this culture is that everyone's afraid to tell you you're wrong, or they think they have to dance around it.) Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting. Obviously, don't declare yourself to be operating by Crocker's Rules unless you have that kind of mental discipline.
Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean you can insult people; it means that other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you. Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it? Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor."
I dunno, it seems fairly sane to stand first in places you are guaranteed not to win, if you want to get started in politics. Lowest risk method of getting experience and people are impressed if you poll anything at all.
If blockchain based currencies prove themselves to be a significant improvement on current monetary systems then state currencies, such as the US dollar, will adopt the new technology, as they have done with all other previous developments in money.
This would seem to indicate that a blockchain coin pegged to the dollar only keeps any marginal utility at all during the period where the technology is novel, as blockchain tech either crashing or becoming successful, would both be events that kill it.