Vincent Bugliosi gets the Chomsky treatment

[Crosson]

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.

All the members of a conspiracy to commit murder are culpable as principals. I'm sure you know that Bugliosi convicted Manson of murders for which he was not physically present, where he was only acting as the commander.

These deaths arose from his execution of office as he is required to do by his oath upon becoming President.

If that was true, there would be no case. But because Saddam was not a threat, and Bush was repeatedly given information to that effect, the war was not necessary to protect America and Bush could not have been following his duty.

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.

Even if the argument could be made that the soldiers and all the rest of us consented to Bush's murders by our living in a republic, it does not matter because consent of the victim is not a defense for murder.

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.

I absolutely agree, I really wonder what this country has become (or since I am young, I wonder what it ever really was)? But while impeachment is the remedy, I don't think that impeachment would deliver justice to the thousands of American families who suffered for Bush's war.

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.

I don't see how they can't.

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?

It didn't take intelligence, all he had to do was become the president and give the orders. Obviously, rushing to attack Iraq was a stupid thing to do, so I would not be surprised if it was Bush's idea that he strongly pushed on others. Besides, all the members of a conspiracy to commit murder are culpable.

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.")

Then we should give up the entire enterprise of justice, since it is clearly a farce if only drug dealers and gang members get prosecuted while someone like Bush spends the rest of his life as a free man.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm sure you know that Bugliosi convicted Manson of murders for which he was not physically present, where he was only acting as the commander.

When you make no distinction between an extra-legal cult committing crimes against a society and the President acting within the constructs of the Constitution that defines his authorities and powers, duly ceded to him by the members of that society, whether or not they may inure to their eventual benefit, there's no further argument I can really offer.

Regardless of his contribution to any deception of the people that elected him, I can only hold that the failure of the electorate and its duly elected representatives to counteract such action that they so authorized him to make, seems to me to make the entire nation collectively and not individually culpable. Their remedy as we have discussed is to kick his behind out of office. (His lease is up soon anyway.) The people's recourse is to also replace those representatives that consented in his actions.

Since you are determined to cling to the notion that District Court rules would apply universally to Constitutional matters, I will have to leave you to it. As far as any interpretation you might expect from a court of competent jurisdiction, I'd pretty much be certain that the corpus of Bugliosi's argument won't carry much weight.

Remember Bugliosi's haul out of this is revenue promoting his books. That's apparently why he's whining - not nearly so much that Bush is going to get away with anything.

 

[LowlyPion]

Chew on this then:

Remember the Invasion of that Caribbean Super-Power that we muscled up on?

Codenamed Operation Urgent Fury

Where was Bugliosi in prosecuting Reagan for the 19 deaths incurred in securing Grenada?

Where's his book on that?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In short... Can anyone point out any case what so ever where one person sent another into a situation knowing that the person may die (not intending for that person to die) and was convicted of murder? And remember we are specifically talking about murder.

 

[russ_watters]

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:

Few of those answers actually say anything about murder. Fraud isn't murder and most people accept that Bush could be impeached for fraud if the Congress was willing and they though they had a reasonable chance to be able to prove it.

So the first question is: how do you arrive at a charge of murder?

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.

You (he) need to back up a step and actually show that murders have been committed. Never before in history has a combat death of a soldier been considered murder.

And there are plenty of examples from history of blunders up and down the chain of command that led to the deaths of soldiers. One of the more recent is Clinton's in the battle of Mogadishu (though his secdef took the fall for him). But you may as well toss the Vietnam war in there too. And while we're at it, there are plenty of Generals who sent soldiers to their deaths when they knew the odds of success in the mission were tiny. Halsey probably should have been court martialed for driving a task force through a hurricane, sinking 3 ships and killing 800 sailors. That wasn't combat, but it most certainly was dereliction of duty.

This "reckless disregard" thing is a red herring. First he has to prove that there was a murder before he can even get an arrest warrant.

Don't be fooled by the fact that the book is well sourced. That doesn't mean the sources or the arguments behind them are relevant.

 

[mheslep]

...
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? ...

? A great deal.
Grins galore:
FDR 1942 less than 12 months after Perl Harbor
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/images/photodb/09-1853a.gif
FDR Jan 22, 1943
http://www.archives.gov/global-page...gue/2006/winter/images/churchill.caption.html
FDR 1944
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/images/photodb/09-1897a.gif
Patton, Monty, Ike, Arnold showing reckless disregard.
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/images/photodb/23-0193a.gif

 

[edward]

Bush and Torture. The International Red Cross has submitted a report to the CIA proclaiming that the treatment of prisoners at guantanamo is torture.

A former JAG officer agrees that Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes.

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2008/07/joe-abodeely-joins-ranks-with-vincent.html

 

[russ_watters]

That's different than the topic of the OP but imo, a more realistic line of reasoning.

 

[J23Smith]

While he has technically murdered nobody, Bush has to know in his own mind that he is responsible for every single person that has died on both sides in this war. The war was his baby and he told lies until he had the support for it. If you hire a hitman and he kills your wife, you go to prison for murder. What he has done in Iraq is not that different. He'll never be prosecuted but he knows how much blood is on his hands before he lays down at night.

 

[Hurkyl]

May I inquire if anyone in this thread actually has training in law? (Preferably related to the present context)

 

[WarPhalange]

I've had several years of training in the laws of physics. Does that count?*ba dum, ptsch*

 

[Hurkyl]

I've had several years of training in the laws of physics. Does that count?


*ba dum, ptsch*

Only if you studied combinatorics too.