Vincent Bugliosi gets the Chomsky treatment

[fourier jr]

Welcome to the world of the "liberal" media in the US:

As a prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi was perfect in murder cases: 21 trials, 21 convictions, including the Charles Manson case in 1971.

As an author, Bugliosi has written three No.1 bestsellers and won three Edgar Allen Poe awards, the top honor for crime writers.

But what happens when a big-name author, who more than 30 years ago co-wrote the best seller "Helter Skelter," publishes a book that the mainstream press has shied away from?

Bugliosi's latest, a polemic with the provocative title, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder," has risen to best-seller status with nary a peep from the usual outlets that help sell books: cable television and book reviews in major daily newspapers.

Bugliosi, in a recent interview by telephone from his home in Los Angeles, said he had expected some pushback from the mainstream media because of the subject matter - the book lays a legal case for holding Bush "criminally responsible" for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq - but did not expect a virtual blackout.

His publisher and publicist said they expected Bugliosi's credentials to ensure coverage. He is, after all, fairly mainstream. His last book, a 1,612-page doorstop on the Kennedy assassination, "Reclaiming History," which was published last year, sought to debunk the conspiracy theorists and is being made into a 10-hour miniseries by HBO and the actor Tom Hanks.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/06/business/BUGLIOSI07.php

 

[LowlyPion]

"... - but did not expect a virtual blackout."

Why would anyone take Bugliosi seriously? While the country may have been taken to war fraudulently, sadly there is no law against this war because it hasn't been remediated by those that continue it in the congress. For better or worse the American public is ensnared in the stupidity of the current administration's actions. Now congress could choose to remove him from office - but look at the puppet master that would assume the reins in that case - the old dissembler - Mr Trigger Happy I-thought-I-saw-a-bird-on-my-right Dick Cheney himself. The country should take some sense of ease that Bush in these last few months merely poses the threat of incremental stupidity, before being ushered into his old age to busy himself with the details of his breathlessly anticipated library.

 

[Crosson]

Why would anyone take Bugliosi seriously?

He has a perfect record of 21 murder prosecutions, and he thinks that the president can be successfully prosecuted for murder.

I didn't realize there might be a case against Bush for the murder of American troops, but there is no doubt that the executive orders for torture and suspension of Habeus Corpus at Guantanamo bay, along with warrantless wiretapping on American soil, are a violation of the constitution which makes Bush guilty of high treason, which is punishable by death.

Being the president of the US is no cakewalk, you swear to uphold and honor the constitution, and if you fail at that it clearly says the punishment is death. I only wish Saddam could have lived to see the day.

 

[Cyrus]

Welcome to the world of the "liberal" media in the US:


http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/06/business/BUGLIOSI07.php

What do you mean by welcome to the world of the 'liberal' media in the US. Do you not own a televison? There are lots of 'conservative' talk shows out there.

Everytime I hear, 'oh, its the liberal media this, liberal media that'...makes me roll my eyes.

 

[LowlyPion]

He has a perfect record of 21 murder prosecutions, and he thinks that the president can be successfully prosecuted for murder.

My opinion is that he is on a fool's errand. The Constitution is the only Law the President answers to. He can in theory pardon himself even as regards to implied criminal matters that Bugliosi raises.

What he cannot do is survive in his office from impeachment and conviction if the country finds sufficient grievance. If he is such a legal eagle, why do you suppose that he doesn't grasp such a fundamental issue as jurisdiction?

You don't possibly think that he might be kicking up bottom mud to promote his crackpot book do you? No chance that he would be out for personal gain by making controversial allegations tackling these high profile issues?

The blush is off the bloom as far as George Bush goes. No one is apparently confused about him looking at his approval ratings. No petitions to repeal the 22 Amendment for instance.

How is it he isn't getting coverage by the "liberal media" again? I find 115,000 entries for "Vincent Bugliosi" +prosecution +Bush and most of them appear to be about this book.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+"Vincent+Bugliosi"++prosecution++Bush&start=0&sa=N

 

[Gokul43201]

How is it he isn't getting coverage by the "liberal media" again? I find 115,000 entries for "Vincent Bugliosi" +prosecution +Bush and most of them appear to be about this book.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+"Vincent+Bugliosi"++prosecution++Bush&start=0&sa=N

How many of those hits belong to CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, Wash. Post, Chic. Tribune, NPR, USA Today, WSJ, Philly Inquirer or other such mainstream media sources?

 

[Gokul43201]

What do you mean by welcome to the world of the 'liberal' media in the US.

He was being sarcastic.

 

[Evo]

How is it he isn't getting coverage by the "liberal media" again? I find 115,000 entries for "Vincent Bugliosi" +prosecution +Bush and most of them appear to be about this book.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+"Vincent+Bugliosi"++prosecution++Bush&start=0&sa=N

The number of websites listed has absolutely no meaning since it just means that any of those words in your search string were found on some website. Probabaly half of those sites would be gardening websites.

 

[edward]

According to the WSJ Law Blog, It would appear Bugliosi thinks the liberal media is afraid to be associated with the book. I tend to agree with that opinion. Apparently the word murder is a bit too strong in a non fiction work.

Impeach the President The Case Against Bush and Cheney
Dr. Dennis D. Loo, Peter Phillips , did receive media coverage.

His latest effort has also shot to the top of the charts — it’s No. 14 on the Times best-seller list and has sold 130,000 copies — but without the help of news outlets such as ABC Radio, MSNBC and Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”

“They are not responding at all,” Bugliosi told the Times. “I think it all goes back to fear. If the liberal media would put me on national television, I think they’d fear that they would be savaged by the right wing. The left wing fears the right, but the right does not fear the left.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/07/07/in-new-book-manson-prosecutor-lays-out-murder-case-against-bush/

 

[LowlyPion]

The number of websites listed has absolutely no meaning ...

I wouldn't say that. I won't argue that it is anything but a very crude measure of net presence. But that said I did page through a bit before posting the link and noted that out at citation 388 - all that Google presented me - they were mostly relevant to the search criteria. Now are they all on-line book sellers? That wasn't my impression - clearly a subjective statement on my part.

But I do think it is gross indication of net presence, and I'd say, that it is not exactly the case that no one knows about this book. Neither does that result indicate that there may be any particular political conspiracy to silence it. I think Bugliosi's premise that prosecution of a sitting Commander in Chief ordering troops in harm's way is open to any interpretation of criminal negligence - despite whatever fraud may have been involved in taking them to that circumstance - is totally unfounded. It would appear that it is a prerogative of office. Whatever remedy there may be lies only with the Congress in this situation and Congress chooses not to act in this regard.

As an aside, at the very least you should give me some credit that the search criteria was not flawed to the extent that it was particularly inclusive of sites exclusive to nurturing radishes. (Though some hits do occur, they still seem to reference the book.)

 

[LowlyPion]

According to the WSJ Law Blog, It would appear Bugliosi thinks the liberal media is afraid to be associated with the book. I tend to agree with that opinion. Apparently the word murder is a bit too strong in a non fiction work.

It's unclear to me why anyone after consulting counsel would want to promote the book on their programming. I just don't see the basic premise of his desired prosecution, or the jurisdiction he could invoke. I don't see it as a "liberal" aversion, so much as perhaps a "crackpot" aversion, reflecting on the perceived quality of the programming as opposed to the politics of the programming.

After all while Bugliosi may enjoy freedom of speech, why would he expect to enjoy free promotion by the media of any political bent?

 

[edward]

After all while Bugliosi may enjoy freedom of speech, why would he expect to enjoy free promotion by the media of any political bent?

Perhaps because just about every other author has.

Actually he is getting plenty of free publicity by the local media. The major media won't touch it , not even Imus. It is, however, now all over youtube like white on rice.

 

[WarPhalange]

Yeah, but so was Ron Paul.

 

[russ_watters]

Welcome to the world of the "liberal" media in the US:

Liberal, yes. Utterly insane, no. This didn't make the mainstream press for the same reason the mainstream press doesn't run a daily column by Al Frankin.

 

[russ_watters]

He has a perfect record of 21 murder prosecutions, and he thinks that the president can be successfully prosecuted for murder.

In those 21 cases, he had the law and precedent on his side. He has neither for this idea. It's pretty absurd.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps because just about every other author has.

His book is currently 14th (last week 12th) on the nonfiction bestseller list. With 8 categories, that means there are roughly 104 books ahead of him. How much press should they be getting?

LP is right, though, what is the media going to say? 'Provocative premise, but we checked with our legal advisors and they say he's a nut.'

 

[Crosson]

Has anyone read or listened to the book? You can download the audio version of the book on demand, if you subscribe to an appropriate online service.

I am on the fourth chapter of the book, and Bugliosi has not yet explained his plan for finding precedent/jurisdiction for this prosecution.

'Provocative premise, but we checked with our legal advisors and they say he's a nut.'

The question is, did they read the book first?

 

[LowlyPion]

I am on the fourth chapter of the book, and Bugliosi has not yet explained his plan for finding precedent/jurisdiction for this prosecution.

While I haven't read the book, I freely admit, I am sincerely curious about what his premise could be because I can't imagine that there is any authority that presents a check to the President's primacy in conducting the actions of the Armed Forces.

Would Bugliosi also have brought charges against Lincoln for his cold realization that the War between the States could be won merely by attrition? That immigration to the North from Europe was replacing war losses and the South did not have that advantage?

His strategy was cold. But it was successful. Was that murder too? And by what authority could he have ever been tried for it?

When you complete the book, I hope you will share, as best you can relate it, his thinking.

 

[Crosson]

I have listened to enough of the book to be convinced: I believe Bugliosi has an outstanding case for prosecuting George W Bush
for murder in a US court. I found the book excellent in general, with 70-85% of it being direct quotations from primary sources, without any of the extended conjecture that we usually see in political bash-books.

I think that the best way for me to present the legal theory in this forum is to answer the questions and objections that you all have made:

While the country may have been taken to war fraudulently, sadly there is no law against this war because it hasn't been
remediated by those that continue it in the congress.

Bugliosi argues that the fraud nullifies the consent of congress.

The Constitution is the only Law the President answers to.

In America, no one is above the law. There is nothing in the murder laws which say they don't apply to presidents.

He can in theory pardon himself even as regards to implied criminal matters that Bugliosi raises.

The president cannot pardon himself, remember that Ford was the one who pardoned Nixon.

What he cannot do is survive in his office from impeachment and conviction if the country finds sufficient grievance. If he is such a legal eagle, why do you suppose that he doesn't grasp such a fundamental issue as jurisdiction?

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constititution says:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

The case has jourisdiction in federal court, in all 50 state courts, and in every district that was home to a US serviceman who was killed in Iraq.

In those 21 cases, he had the law and precedent on his side. He has neither for this idea. It's pretty absurd.

Why don't you think he has the law on his side?

Bush did not physically commit the murders, but we know that does not absolve him.

Bush didn't specifically intend for American soldiers to get killed, but because he knew that a loss of life in the conflict would be inevitable, he is liable for murder if we show that he had reckless disregard for the victims lives.

The truly frightening part of the book is when Bugliosi presents a mountain of direct quotation evidence that supports the conclusion. Going beyond his public statements at press conferences, we see a man who began a war out of selfishness who has no regard for the lives of the soldiers that are dying out there.

Feel free to ask specific questions if you are not yet convinced. Bugliosi addressed every objection I could think of, he didn't cop out at all. I also recommend buying the book, since at the very least it is a handy reference for all the quotations that reveal the deception and incompetence surrounding the Iraq war.

 

[OAQfirst]

Bush didn't specifically intend for American soldiers to get killed, but because he knew that a loss of life in the conflict would be inevitable, he is liable for murder if we show that he had reckless disregard for the victims lives.

Where do we find "reckless disregard"?

 

[LowlyPion]

The president cannot pardon himself, ...

This is factually incorrect.

Article II, section 2 grants the president power "...to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Nothing in the Constitution specifically prohibits it. Moreover by the very nature of the enumerated exclusion for impeachment, the framers clearly took into account "self" application as a possibility.

Bugliosi would first need to scale that mountain of precedent. Moreover, the allegation of "murder" arises from casualties in the prosecution of his office as Commander in Chief in a war. I can guarantee that the Supreme Court would squash any such attempt at prosecution.

It is noble sentiment to suggest that no man is above the law, but being President grants to the officeholder unnatural latitude in behavior - at least theoretically. However the President needs to remember that his power is not complete because he can still be removed through a political process of either election of the people or the Congress.

If you are reflecting the substance of Bugliosi's foundation for prosecution, then he's only got squat. (But at least he was able to sell a book to you for his effort, and despite the media turning up their noses at him.)

 

[Crosson]

Where do we find "reckless disregard"?

There is ample evidence that Bush distorted the evidence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. For example, we have incidents where he would be briefed in the morning by the CIA director to the effect of "It seems that Baghdad is for now drawing the line short of pursuing terrorism against the US, unless Saddam feels that diplomacy is no longer an option." and then in the evening Bush would say "Hussein is an urgent threat...we must ask now before the smoking gun is a smoking mushroom cloud."

Taking the country to war on a lie already shows disregard for the soldiers lives, but we also have an enormous volume of public statements that show a shocking insensitivity about the thousands of violent deaths that Bush's war caused.

For example, in the first two weeks of August 2005 the New York Times reported "At least 43 Americans, and 124 Iraqis have been killed in the last 2 weeks." On August 13th we have President Bush describing his schedule to reporters:

"I'm going to have lunch with Sec. Rice, talk a little business, I've got a friend from south Texas here named Catherine Armstrong, take a little nap, I'm reading an Elmore Leonard book right now, knock off a little Elmore Leonard this afternoon, go fishing with my man Barney (Bush's dog), light dinner and head to the ballgame, I get to bed around 9:30pm, wake up about 5 am, so it's a perfect day."

Obviously the Bush apologists will ask "why should Bush be miserable all the time, even though he took the country to war to find weapons that don't exist?" There are two answers to this:

1) The statement above belongs to a catalog of dozens of similar incidents, so it is part of a pattern of behavior and not just an isolated insensitive mistake.

2) Compare Bush's concern for the troops with that of any previous American president and we see a marked difference. How many pictures can you find of FDR, Truman, or LBJ smiling during wartime? Or cracking jokes like Bush did while visiting the Brooke Army medical center where soldiers injured in the Iraq war were recovering from limb amputations, he told reporters:

"As you can possibly see, I have a bit of injury myself, not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won, the cedar gave me a little scratch, I was able to avoid any major surgical operation here."

 

[LowlyPion]

Bugliosi argues that the fraud nullifies the consent of congress.

Please tell me he has a citation of some authority for that.

If Congress feels they have been "fraudulently misled" then that remedy - impeachment - is clearly available to it. Clearly since they have not acted there is no place for Bugliosi to go with this.

I'm left to wonder about his competence in his advancing years. (He'll be 74 in a few weeks.)

 

[LowlyPion]

On August 13th we have President Bush describing his schedule to reporters:

Do you seriously think that any will argue against his elitist arrogance and stupidity and insensitivity? That is simply a so what? A reckless disregard for his own self esteem? You can make that case. But not as it might be applied to a so called "crime" that Bugliosi can't even prove has occurred.

 

[Crosson]

Nothing in the Constitution specifically prohibits it.

Good point, I only assumed this because of the Ford-Nixon debacle.

Moreover by the very nature of the enumerated exclusion for impeachment, the framers clearly took into account "self" application as a possibility.

Not necessarily, since impeachment does not only apply to the president.

Moreover, the allegation of "murder" arises from casualties in the prosecution of his office as Commander in Chief in a war. I can guarantee that the Supreme Court would squash any such attempt at prosecution.

Fortunately the supreme court has to give reasons for 'quashing' anything. What reasons would they give in this case?

It is noble sentiment to suggest that no man is above the law, but being President grants to the officeholder unnatural latitude in behavior - at least theoretically. However the President needs to remember that his power is not complete because he can still be removed through a political process of either election of the people or the Congress.

And after being impeached, as per Article 1 section 3, can then Indicted, Tried, Judged and Punished, according to Law.

If you are reflecting the substance of Bugliosi's foundation for prosecution, then he's only got squat. (But at least he was able to sell a book to you for his effort, and despite the media turning up their noses at him.)

It would be impossible for me to reflect the substance of the book in such a small amount of words. I don't think I have done a good job presenting the case so far, and for that I apologize (that's why I took so long to even begin posting). I can see that you are interested in jurisdiction, rather then guilt, and so the next thing I will try to find is a discussion of the pardon issue.

 

[Crosson]

Please tell me he has a citation of some authority for that.

He says it is 'boiler plate law', and he will return to the issue later (I haven't got there yet).

Do you seriously think that any will argue against his elitist arrogance and stupidity and insensitivity? That is simply a so what? A reckless disregard for his own self esteem? You can make that case. But not as it might be applied to a so called "crime" that Bugliosi can't even prove has occurred.

Bush sent the soldiers to war based on lies for his own political and personal benefit, and part of understanding why this is a criminal act of murder involves understanding that he only cares about himself, much like a repeat-offender drunk driver.

 

[OAQfirst]

There is ample evidence that Bush distorted the evidence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. For example, we have incidents where he would be briefed in the morning by the CIA director to the effect of "It seems that Baghdad is for now drawing the line short of pursuing terrorism against the US, unless Saddam feels that diplomacy is no longer an option." and then in the evening Bush would say "Hussein is an urgent threat...we must ask now before the smoking gun is a smoking mushroom cloud."

Taking the country to war on a lie already shows disregard for the soldiers lives, but we also have an enormous volume of public statements that show a shocking insensitivity about the thousands of violent deaths that Bush's war caused.

I can see how it shows fraud if proof is shown that the war was sold on a lie. But even so, if the soldiers are given the regular commitment of supply and support as in any other war, and a reasonable and agreeable objective (such as arresting Sadam) then I don't see reckless disregard. I still see a hard sell on a murder case (in part because of the number of al qaeda terror cells swept up by the coalition).

I think the "reckless disregard" we get out of his statements reflect his attitude, but not so much his actions. I don't see how this fits within the meaning of the law.

 

[LowlyPion]

He says it is 'boiler plate law', and he will return to the issue later (I haven't got there yet).

There is no "boiler plate law" that applies to construction of Constitutional matters, save the Constitution itself.

While you may be eager to buy Bugliosi's characterizations of Bush, and he may well be morally bankrupt and culpable, I see no basis established that would make him guilty of any laws that are relevant to his position under the Constitution.

Bugliosi looks to be stuck in District Court on this one.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm a security guard. Say my employer tells me that we have an account at a particular site some place and assigns me there. They let me know that the area is dangerous and give me all the training and gear possible to help me protect myself. They pay me and even pay me extra for being on such a dangerous site. As faar as I or anyone else knows they follow all aplicable laws and regulations for my employment in such a situation. Then I get killed and it comes out that my company never actually had a legal contract for the site that I was located when I was killed. Technically I should not have been on the property at all. Is the owner of the company now guilty of "murder"? Its not quite the same I'm sure but similar. I can see other possible reasons for conviction but not murder.
I think that Bugliosi wants to try to call it murder for a sensationalist effect. Remember that he is a lawyer and apparently a good one. Lawyers often throw charges at criminals that probably don't properly fit the crime. Its more impressive to get a murder conviction as opposed to just fraud or gross negligence.




On the topic of the press ignoring the book it might be good to note that Bugliosi's book came out only about a week before McClellen's "What Happened", and McClellen's publisher had leaked material from the book early to get the press talking about it.\
Also...
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q...W. Bush for Murder"&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
searching google news for the specific title of the book in quotes brings back just over 100 hits including the NY Times and the Wallstreet Journal. Unfortunately for Bugliosi an insider expose will almost always trump anything more creative and it seems his book was more or less eclipsed in the media.

People and the press have already gotten much more involved in the election as well and aren't likely to give much time to discuss whether or not the guy leaving office could hypothetically be tried for murder.

 

[Astronuc]

Where do we find "reckless disregard"?

That would be where Bush (Cheney and Rumsfeld) sent troops into the field without necessary armour (body armour and un-armoured Humvees). Of course, Rumsfeld mentioned, 'you go to war with the army you have.' It wasn't until about mid 2005 into 2006 that the troops got appropriate armour.

Then there was the actions of the CPA in arbitrarily dismissing the Baath party members and the Iraqi military. The insurgency began within about 2 days of the dismissal of the military, even after they sought to work with the US forces.

So much of what has happened could have been avoided.

Bush's actions show a callous if not reckless disregard for the lives of the US troops and Iraqi people.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think that Bugliosi wants to try to call it murder for a sensationalist effect. Remember that he is a lawyer and apparently a good one. ...

On the topic of the press ignoring the book it might be good to note that Bugliosi's book came out only about a week before McClellen's "What Happened", and McClellen's publisher had leaked material from the book early to get the press talking about it...

... Unfortunately for Bugliosi an insider expose will almost always trump anything more creative and it seems his book was more or less eclipsed in the media.

He may have been a District Attorney, but looking at his thin hypotheses I can't say he's much of a Constitutional lawyer.

If Bush were a defendant in District Court - subject to regular laws like everyone else - the prospects against might be different. But he is a sitting President at all times relevant to whatever fraud may have been committed by him and his henchmen (Rove, Cheney, McClellan ... his administration) or whatever deaths may have occurred as a result of whatever scheming without regard for those that would die.

If the Country feels he was not justified in bringing the action against Iraq, that he has misrepresented, that he sent soldiers to senseless deaths - their remedy is to remove him from office, not try him for murder.

If there was the threat that the President, as Commander in Chief, would be personally liable for the deaths of any under his command that - rightly or wrongly - might put an overly burdensome consideration on the country's military options present or future at a time of instant communication and threat when rapid response is at a premium.

You may argue whether it would be good or not to burden all Presidents in this way all you want, but that would seem to require modification to the Constitution first, as the President is currently shielded from such liability.

As things now stand we should all rejoice that Bush and Cheney and Rove will be removed from the Halls of Power on January 20, 2009. Let the countdown continue and the parties be planned I say.

 

[Crosson]

If Bush were a defendant in District Court - subject to regular laws like everyone else - the prospects against might be different. But he is a sitting President at all times relevant to whatever fraud may have been committed by him and his henchmen (Rove, Cheney, McClellan ... his administration) or whatever deaths may have occurred as a result of whatever scheming without regard for those that would die.

Bush is subject to regular laws like everyone else, what part of the murder statutes say they don't apply to presidents, or instead, what part of the constitution says that the president is not liable for murder?

It seems that you think the president is always immune from prosecution for his actions in office, but I don't see any reason for this, and in fact it is illogical.

For example, suppose for the sake of argument that Bush intentionally lied to take the country to war. Instead of over 4,000 Americans dead, suppose that there was a draft and we had over 4,000,000 Americans dead. Do you still think that he should be immune to criminal prosecution, if these were his actions?

If the Country feels he was not justified in bringing the action against Iraq, that he has misrepresented, that he sent soldiers to senseless deaths - their remedy is to remove him from office, not try him for murder.

No, article 1 section 3 specifically says that both of these remedies are availble. What would be the point of article 1 section 3 if the president was always to be immune from criminal prosecution?

If there was the threat that the President, as Commander in Chief, would be personally liable for the deaths of any under his command that - rightly or wrongly - might put an overly burdensome consideration on the country's military options present or future at a time of instant communication and threat when rapid response is at a premium.

That is a slippery slope fallacy. Assuming that Bush intentionally lied to take the country to war, any other president who is honestly acting on the best available intelligence will not be in a similar situation. I think we can all agree that in the future, the executive branch should take pains to document its evidence and reasoning for going to war, so that the president can use this documentation as evidence in his own defense. Prosecuting Bush for murder would only further motivate future presidents to honestly document the reasons they went to war.

At this point, let me make it clear that if George Bush had not lied to take the country to war for his own political and personal benefit, there would be no case against him. To show that he is guilty of murder requires to show that he had reckless disregard for the lives of troops, and I hope we all agree that anyone who lies to start a war does indeed have reckless disregard for the lives of the troops. Therefore, if we can prove in court that Bush lied to start this war, we can show that he is a murderer. There is already ample evidence that he lied, and the power of subpoena would likely yield a lot more evidence.

You may argue whether it would be good or not to burden all Presidents in this way all you want, but that would seem to require modification to the Constitution first, as the President is currently shielded from such liability.

By the pardon power? Or something else?

As things now stand we should all rejoice that Bush and Cheney and Rove will be removed from the Halls of Power on January 20, 2009. Let the countdown continue and the parties be planned I say.

Why should we let them get away with this, if they indeed committed the crimes?

That would be where Bush (Cheney and Rumsfeld) sent troops into the field without necessary armour (body armour and un-armoured Humvees). Of course, Rumsfeld mentioned, 'you go to war with the army you have.' It wasn't until about mid 2005 into 2006 that the troops got appropriate armour.

Then there was the actions of the CPA in arbitrarily dismissing the Baath party members and the Iraqi military. The insurgency began within about 2 days of the dismissal of the military, even after they sought to work with the US forces.

So much of what has happened could have been avoided.

Bush's actions show a callous if not reckless disregard for the lives of the US troops and Iraqi people.

Good points, and Bugliosi raises these as supporting evidence.

 

[LowlyPion]

It seems that you think the president is always immune from prosecution for his actions in office, but I don't see any reason for this, and in fact it is illogical.

... No, article 1 section 3 specifically says that both of these remedies are availble. What would be the point of article 1 section 3 if the president was always to be immune from criminal prosecution?

The problem you face in forwarding Bugliosi's improbable application of the law, is the practical matter that Bush hasn't even so much as been impeached. Until that gating event, all the opinion in the world about Bush being a fraud and leading the country to unnecessary war and cynically causing the deaths of Americans in pursuit of some minority agenda is wholly moot.

Your reliance on Section 3 unfortunately overlooks the President's option of Pardoning himself. Section 3 liability can indeed fall to others that may be impeached, as called out in the following Section 4. But Article 2 Section 2 remains unchallenged as regards the President's absolute prerogative of pardon, which includes self-pardon for such criminal matters as Bugliosi would want to concoct.

 

[Crosson]

The problem you face in forwarding Bugliosi's improbable application of the law, is the practical matter that Bush hasn't even so much as been impeached. Until that gating event, all the opinion in the world about Bush being a fraud and leading the country to unnecessary war and cynically causing the deaths of Americans in pursuit of some minority agenda is wholly moot.

I agree that he cannot be prosecuted until he is out of office, but I do not agree that impeachment is a necessary pre-condition to his prosecution. What part of the murder laws say that they only apply to former presidents who have been impeached?

Your reliance on Section 3 unfortunately overlooks the President's option of Pardoning himself. Section 3 liability can indeed fall to others that may be impeached, as called out in the following Section 4. But Article 2 Section 2 remains unchallenged as regards the President's absolute prerogative of pardon, which includes self-pardon for such criminal matters as Bugliosi would want to concoct.

If this were true then the president could kill anyone and everyone he wanted and then pardon himself before being impeached. What would happen if a president did that? Does the pardon in general grant him the same powers as a brutal dictator, aside from the slow and inadequate justice of impeachment?

Apparently the horrible truth is that Bush has already pardoned himself for ordering torture:



And so I now agree with you, lowlypion, that we will not be able to bring lawful justice to this case without an amendment to the constitution. I also concede that Bugliosi does not address this issue in the parts of the book I have listened to so far. Perhaps we will have to resort to my backup plan, which is to send Bush to Guantanamo bay prison and throw away the key.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think it is also important not to confuse his role as Commander in Chief of those that have been killed as in any way his being culpable for murder in the common sense. These deaths were casualties of acts of war. These deaths arose from his execution of office as he is required to do by his oath upon becoming President.

Whatever policy blunders or misrepresentations may have arisen to arrive at the point that war is a matter of national policy necessarily is born of political consent to same. In that sense the appropriate remedy should be a political one - impeachment, removing him from office or cessation of funding or the changing of policy. None of that has been done. The country has attached shared culpability for continuing so long after the realization that there were no WMDs.

Moreover I think to attach criminal penalties for consequences flowing from political acts seems to be inappropriate. While similarities may be drawn from instances appropriate to District Court, I don't see how they can be applied to acts of consensual National Policy. As it stands in this case Bush surely did not act alone. Is there anyone that thinks that he is smart enough to singlehandedly take the country to war? He has held office as the nominal head of a cabal that has controlled National Policy these last 8 years. Mercifully that day is ending shortly as a new cabal is surely going to replace them.

Besides putting on trial any politician that lies would be a tireless exercise. That realization alone might actually be an affirmative defense for Bush. ("You mean you believed me? LOL. I'm a politician.")