The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=CalMeacham]
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.
[/QUOTE]

But, you seee, that’s really irrelevant to a legal charge of murder. You don’t need the emotional agony of reading heartbroken parents’ stories. It’s obvious that soldiers died; the fact that families are upset might be relevant at sentencing, but it’s not a fact that would require cumulative proof at trial.

The very fact that his thesis relies so strongly on outrage is evidence of the legal weakness of his case. He needs the reader to be so furious at the terrible deaths that he wants someone to pay, and isn’t particular about the legal niceties in getting that someone to pay.

22

Bugliosi should just change the title to The Prosecution of Bill Clinton for Murder. The networks and cable shows would be lining up to book him.

23

[QUOTE=Frostillicus]
Bugliosi should just change the title to The Prosecution of Bill Clinton for Murder. The networks and cable shows would be lining up to book him.
[/QUOTE]

Cite?

24

[QUOTE=Sampiro]
Godzilla vs. George W. Bush is even zippier.
[/QUOTE]

How about Burning Bush: The President on Trial

Ambushed: The President on Trial

Pinbushion: The President on Trial
They write themselves.

25

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
How about Burning Bush: The President on Trial

Ambushed: The President on Trial

Pinbushion: The President on Trial
They write themselves.
[/QUOTE]

Firebush: Lindsay Lohan v. The White House

26

The BushMasters: The Protocols of the Elders of Xenu

27

This Bugliosi authored entry on The Huffington Post gives a nutshell version of his book for those who don’t want to read the book or the full website.

28

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

My impression from the interview I heard was that he was talking about after Bush leaves office.
[/QUOTE]
I heard him interviewed on Air America a couple of weeks ago, and that’s what I understood, too.
[QUOTE=Bricker]

But, you seee, that’s really irrelevant to a legal charge of murder. You don’t need the emotional agony of reading heartbroken parents’ stories. It’s obvious that soldiers died; the fact that families are upset might be relevant at sentencing, but it’s not a fact that would require cumulative proof at trial.

The very fact that his thesis relies so strongly on outrage is evidence of the legal weakness of his case. He needs the reader to be so furious at the terrible deaths that he wants someone to pay, and isn’t particular about the legal niceties in getting that someone to pay.
[/QUOTE]
From the interview I heard, there is no emotional appeal being made as any kind of argument for a murder charge. That’s probably just to fill more pages in a book, and make it more likely to be read by the general public, who seem to crave the “gory details” as it were. He actually laid out a very precise legal argument, void of any emotion, that he thinks can legitimately be used by any prosecutor’s office in any state where a slain soldier resided (should they have the balls to do it).

29

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
How about Burning Bush: The President on Trial

Ambushed: The President on Trial

Pinbushion: The President on Trial
They write themselves.
[/QUOTE]

{hijack}

Everyone’s invited to play
{end hijack}

30

In my opinion, there’s no case here. There’s no legal precedent making Presidents criminally liable for the death of soldiers who die in combat. Congress approved military action so it was legal. Bush almost certainly is guilty of lying to Congress and the public about the evidence making the case that military force was needed but, as far as I know, that’s not an actual crime.

31

Bugliosi argues that Bush hid facts from Congress and altered the intelligence reports. he showed them.

32

But that’s what he’s claiming – that the lie that led to the approval by Congress to send our soldiers into war, constitutes a crime that could have him be prosecuted for murder for any death that occurred as a direct result of that lie.

33

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Bush almost certainly is guilty of lying to Congress and the public about the evidence making the case that military force was needed but, as far as I know, that’s not an actual crime.
[/QUOTE]
Lying to Congress is a felony, as I recall.

34

As much as I admire Obama and loathe Bush, as much as some believe Obama is someone selling dreams instead of reality, and despite how much supporting evidence there is, I cannot see our next president allowing the Justice Department or a Congress composed of people of his own party pursuing this. It would be too divisive and I believe Obama is pragmatic and long ago learned that such a path would block other paths that would provide real good, not just smug satisfaction.

But boy, it’d be satisfying.

35

But isn’t lying to Congress a federal crime? There is no precedent for pardoning himself, is there?

36

We want truth and justice, and justice is impossible. 500 years in a Club Fed wouldn’t be justice for one American soldier, or one innocent Iraqi.

So, we can’t have justice. How about truth, then? How about all the subpoenas go, everybody swears and testifys, and we know who did what when. That’ll have to do, its all we’ll ever get.

37

[QUOTE=dropzone]

As much as I admire Obama and loathe Bush, as much as some believe Obama is someone selling dreams instead of reality, and despite how much supporting evidence there is, I cannot see our next president allowing the Justice Department or a Congress composed of people of his own party pursuing this. It would be too divisive and I believe Obama is pragmatic and long ago learned that such a path would block other paths that would provide real good, not just smug satisfaction.

But boy, it’d be satisfying.
[/QUOTE]
You still aren’t getting it. This is not something he’s suggesting Congress or the next President pursue. He wants, for instance, Steve Cooley, to indict Bush on a murder charge for the deaths of

Los Angeles	Pineda, Carlos	Corporal	24-Jun-2005
Los Angeles	Whitley, Dion M.	Lance Corporal	15-Jun-2005
Los Angeles	Monzon Jr., Milton M.	Sergeant	24-Jul-2005
Los Angeles	Garcia-Arana, Juan de Dios	Staff Sergeant	30-Apr-2005
Los Angeles	Menyweather, Eddie E.	Staff Sergeant	23-Nov-2003
Los Angeles	Gonzalez, Benjamin R.	Lance Corporal	29-May-2004
Los Angeles	Penamedina, Abraham D.	Staff Sergeant	27-Apr-2004
Los Angeles	Marshall, John Winston	Sergeant 1st Class	08-Apr-2003
Los Angeles	Martinez-Flores, Francisco Abraham	Private 1st Class	27-Mar-2003
Los Angeles	Gonzalez, Jorge Alonso	Corporal	23-Mar-2003
Los Angeles	Lu, Victor R.	Lance Corporal	13-Nov-2004
Los Angeles	Martinezluis, Trinidad R.	Sergeant	28-Nov-2004
Los Angeles	Figueroa, Luis A.	Lance Corporal	18-Nov-2004
Los Angeles	Razani, Omead H.	Specialist	27-Aug-2004
Los Angeles	Lopez, Edgar E.	Sergeant	28-Aug-2004
Los Angeles	Villanueva, Joselito O.	Sergeant 1st Class	27-Sep-2004
Los Angeles	Sandoval-Flores, Felipe D.	Lance Corporal	02-Apr-2006
Los Angeles	Guerrero, Salvador	Lance Corporal	09-Jun-2006
Los Angeles	Abad, Roberto	Corporal	06-Aug-2004
Los Angeles	Perez, Geoffrey	Private 1st Class	15-Aug-2004
Los Angeles	Muy, Veashna	Lance Corporal	23-Jun-2005
Los Angeles	Carrillo, Alejandro	Sergeant	30-Jan-2007
Los Angeles	Young, Christopher D.	Specialist	02-Mar-2007
Los Angeles	Catalan, Romel	Specialist	02-Jun-2007
Los Angeles	Gagarin, Greg P.	Staff Sergeant	03-Jun-2007
Los Angeles	Ayres III, Robert T.	Sergeant	29-Sep-2007

Source for the above names: http://icasualties.org/oif/StateCity.aspx

38

[QUOTE=Zoe]
But isn’t lying to Congress a federal crime? There is no precedent for pardoning himself, is there?
[/QUOTE]

I may be mistaken on this, but I believe that lying to Congress is only illegal if you’re under oath.

39

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I may be mistaken on this, but I believe that lying to Congress is only illegal if you’re under oath.
[/QUOTE]

Not true.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1001

Remember Oliver North?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,965082,00.html

40

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Lying to Congress is a felony, as I recall.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t believe it is. It’s illegal to lie to Congress or any other “competent tribunal, officer, or person” if you’re under oath (18 USC 1621), but not otherwise.

If you were going to bring any federal charges against him, they’d be either war crimes (18 USC 2441) or conspiracy to commit torture (18 USC 2340), but the board’s been over those enough times…