The thread title is the title of a new book by the well known L.A. County prosecutor and author, Vincent Bugliosi. I heaed Bugliosi on a local radio interview yesterday talking about this book, and he isn’t kidding with the title. He believes that he has made a legal case for the literal prosecution of Bush for murder in any state which has lost soldiers in Iraq.
Bugliosi has said the he’s faced a virtual media blackout in trying to promote this book, Bugliosi has promoted several other books on these same media outlets he claims are now shutting him out. He is a perenniel best seeling author and an experienced, knowledgable professional as a guest. I guess the title of this book scares them away.
I haven’t read this book yet, and I’d like to get some kind of opinions about it before I do – especially the opinions of legal professionals. I’ve never thought of Bugliosi as a crackpot. As far as I know, he has a good reputation as a prosecutor. He’s not generally thought of as a wingnut. So how out to lunch is this book? Does anyone know if it has any merit?
In the interview I heard yesterday, Bugliosi implied that a lot of his case rested on Bush’s alleged manipulation and even outright falsification of intelligence reports (such as literally deleting the words, “Iraq is not an imminent threat” in the reports he showed to Congress).
What’s going on here. Has Vince gone insane or is there a case to be made here?
Without getting into the legality of this (I want to think about it some more, but the case seems a stretch), if a prosecutor did indict Bush it would be a nightmare. It is not that hard to get an indictment, and a president does not have time to defend something like this. If one of these prosecutions was allowed to go forward, any president that conducts a war would end up in court for his whole term.
Just as a matter of policy, if something like this was attempted, I think Congress should step in and preëmpt the prosecution until at least the President is out of office.
In the time honored Doper tradition of pulling interpretations straight from the fundament, the following:
Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book, made a buttload of money, and got a lot of attention.
VB spent the money, and the phone isn’t ringing. Nobody cares about Charles Manson anymore. Nobody even cares about Marilyn Manson any more. Lot folks don’t like George Bush.
Pursuit of the ever-elusive* ka-ching.* Try GW for murder? Please.
I never thought as Bugliosi as a wingnut, either. However, I did note that for all his protestations of being “clear-sighted” and free from prejudice, he is extremely partisan. Not so much politically, but once he does make up his mind he starts fitting new evidence very tightly inside it, and often “making” weak evidence into very strong evidence, when it doesn’t neccesarily mean anything.
Aside from which, his legal reasoning appears… flawed. And his declaration of conspiracy seems rather ridiculous.
I was given the book as a present, and just started reading it. His arguments will be familiar to anyone on this Board, and he certainly has my sympathies. There’s nothing earth-shatteringly original in here. Bugliosi is going for an emotional pitch, too – he’s got several statements from parents of soldiers who have been killed, which is tiough reading for more than one reason. It’s not just empty posturing, since this is the core of Bugliosi’s case – that Bush personally brought about the deaths of these soldiers by pushing a war agenda with unacceptable reasons.
I don’t think anyone’s ever won a case like this, and i don’t see this going anywhere. Iy’s a goof vent, but he was on sturdier ground with his book on the OJ case.
I read the intro and parts of the book itself at a bookstore. I was surprised to see it on the shelves because given Bugliosi’s notoriety (Helter Skelter and Outrage! particularly) and the subject matter I was amazed I hadn’t seen it advertised or on any of the usual talk shows.
Anyway, IANAL of course but it read very straightforwardly and was not a screed but an actual “Bush can and should be prosecuted, here in a few hundred pages is why, q.e.d.” form. He stated that the ineptitude of the prosecutors in OJ’s case (which he blamed for the acquittal far more than he credited the efficiency of the “Dream Team” [Bailey/Cochran/Dershowitz/et al]) was why he wrote the book: he wanted to provide evidence and legal precedent and also to generate debate and hear how pro-Bush legal minds would refute his arguments and stated his willingness to debate them in a public forum.
That said, if it’s the most airtight case in the history of juris prudence I think we can all be assured it will be received and implemented every bit as seriously as Hitchens’ The Trials of Henry Kissinger (in which he stated that Kissinger should be tried for war crimes, a claim echoed by the Chilean government). In other words- nothing will be done, the time to prosecute or hold him accountable or impeach him is gone and not even most devout Dems want to add further embarassment to the country courtesy of his admin.
Pardon a GQ hijack, but can a president be impeached after he is out of office? If not impeached, does he still have culpability for his actions in office as chief executive (i.e. not criminal offenses committed while president but having nothing to do with his official powers)? I remember when there was talk of deposing Reagan for involvement in Iran-Contra (it was about the same time the family announced he had Alzheimers- coincidence?) but it never came to pass.
Pardons don’t require a conviction. See Nixon. I’m just not convinced that an executive can pardon himself. 'Course, Bush could pardon Cheney, resign on the 19th of January, and then Cheney pardon Bush.
Presidents have pre-emptively pardoned others on various occasions. Bush could in theory simply pardon himself for any and all crimes he’s committed in office before there’s even an investigation, much less a conviction.
IIRC, it usually has no expiration under the statute of limitations. Edgar Ray Killen was convicted of manslaughter 40 years after the "Mississippi Burning’ murders; presumably a 100 year old man could be tried for a murder committed in 1928 if the prosecution is so inclined and the evidence is strong enough and he’s never been tried for the murder before.
The Presidential pardon power only covers federal crimes, right? If VB is talking about a state charge of murder (and he appears to be) then no permutation of the Presidential pardon power would be in play.
But the idea that anyone could bring a charge like this is silly.
Even though a pardon wouldn’t do anything about state charges, I believe that Congress could preëmpt state laws that interfere with national security and foreign affairs. The state laws might already be preëmpted to the extent they interfere with matters that are in the due province of the federal government.
