Book by Vincent Bugliosi. Anyone who loves to hate Bush will want to listen to this. Scroll down the page and you will see the link for the "podcast".

LBN Blog Page - Legal Broadcast Network Blog feeds and news

__________________


"I was there and I saw what you did.... saw it with my own two eyes"
Phil Collins--In the Air Tonight

Play off your hates and fears and waste money on my book.

...But Mr. Vincent wouldn't say that, would he?

__________________
"...Follow the crystal star to the pyre of the flame; there exists the dwelling of the spreading fire. The heart of this life rests upon the fate of that place, and what begins there sends a contagion to the rest of the universe.
As long as the fire burns we shall never be free..." (The Shadows of Yavara, Final Reclamation)

No, I expect not. I wouldn't either....it kind of reminds me of something Charles Manson said in his statement to the jury at his trial about how he viewed the "establishment" that was persecuting him, though.

Its Mr. Bugliosi, btw. Have you read the book or any of his books? I have read several, and found them educational (in the legal process sense) and interesting (in the story telling sense and subject matter).

I haven't read this one but I fully intend to "waste" my money on it. I bet George Bush will buy one too, even if he has one of his aides read it.

In the interview he sounds serious on this one. I am a bit amazed that he would choose this topic, actually, since he really doesn't need to choose such an explosive topic to sell books, or one that could conceivably be dangerous to himself...or on the other hand, make a laughingstock of him if he doesn't deliver what he promises in this one,which is the manner in which Bush could and should be charged with murder for the deaths of U.S. military in the Iraq war.

BTW, I probably should have included a little about the author for those who don't know or remember.

Vincent Bugliosi is the prosecutor who put together the case against Charles Manson and the Manson Family in the 1970's and successfully prosecuted Manson althogh he was not present and did not participate in the murders, and there was no evidence of conspiracy in the classic sense. However Bugliosi was able to show how Manson controlled and manipulated his followers through deceit and mind control mechanisms, religion (Manson's followers believed he was Jesus Christ), con man tricks, sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll, an so got them to commit the murders at his behest. The "plan" was "Helter Skelter" which was also the name of Vincent Bugliosi's book about the case, the investigation, prosecution and trial. A movie was made of it also. Manson's Helter Skelter plan was that rich white people would be killed, and black people framed. Which would according to Manson's plan, result in a race war in which most of the black people and the white "establishment" would be killed, while Manson and his "family" would stay in bunkers deep underground. After that Manson and his family would emerge from underground to take their place as rulers and the few remaining people would serve them. These instructions, he thought, were given to him by the Beatles on the "White Album" which was contained coded messages to him....The Beatles represented the four horsemen of the Apocolypse . So, it was quite a difficult case to present to the jury as to how Manson controlled several people with this Helter Skelter vision and manipulated them into committing some of the most shocking murders of the twentieth century.

Manson was convicted and sentenced to death, although his sentence was commuted to life in prison after the death penalty statute of California was held to be unconstitutional.

The link I posted is to an audio interview with Bugliosi in which he states that the goal of the book is to convince the people and hopefully some prosecutors to go forward with a prosecution for murder of one or more of the military personnel killed in the Iraq war, in U.S. courts, federal or state and he says he has determined jurisdiction for at least 1,000 prosecutors in the country to bring such a case and offers to help any that will attempt a prosecution. I'll consider it worth the price of the book just to see if he makes good on everything he states in the interview.

__________________


"I was there and I saw what you did.... saw it with my own two eyes"
Phil Collins--In the Air Tonight

There will be no "prosecution". American troope killed in Iraq is not "murder by the president" unless Bugliosi is planning on prosecuting the entire administration, most of the senate, and lots of other people.

THe "murder" veiwpoint is naive and ignorant. You can argue if his effect in decisions was correct, but to charge him with murder is the same as chargin the poliice cheif with murder if he sends in a sqaud to go bring in some criminals and some police get killed in the process.

__________________
"...Follow the crystal star to the pyre of the flame; there exists the dwelling of the spreading fire. The heart of this life rests upon the fate of that place, and what begins there sends a contagion to the rest of the universe.
As long as the fire burns we shall never be free..." (The Shadows of Yavara, Final Reclamation)

No.

George W. Bush being prosecuted for murder is like prosecuting your imaginary police chief if:

a) there were no criminals in the house in the first place
b) it can be shown that the chief knew, or should have known, that there were no criminals in the house
c) the chief sent them in there without giving them appropriate equipment.

Bugliosi argues quite convincingly that, in the case of George W. Bush, all three characteristics are met.

You take the position that the decisions were blunders. If you listen to the interview, Bugliosi strongly takes the position that they were not blunders, that they were intentional and knowing...as in knowing that there were no womd and no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein, and that Bush had that information in front of him, but squelched it on purpose.

In NY State (and I am sure in other states there are similar statutes) there is what is called "depraved indifference murder". This is a the same level as an Intentional Murder, but requires no "intent to kill" anyone specifically. It has the same penalties as intentional murder...a sentence of 25 years to life.

The definition of this crime in NY State is as follows:

"A person is guilty of depraved indifference murder in the second degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person, Penal Law Section 125.25[2]."

Acting "recklessly" is further defined in Penal Law Section 15.05[3]:

"A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exist. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in a situation."

If there is solid evidence (as Bugliosi asserts) that there was firm intelligence information that no womd and no imminent threat to the U.S. from Saddam Hussein, or Iraq in general, and it was known but covered up intentionally, as Bugliosi claims, or if there is evidence that there were plans for faking and baiting Iraq into a first attack because there wasn't any "clear and present danger" upon which to base attack and war....I'd say the conduct would fall within the conduct described in that statute.

Whether or not there will be a prosecution will depend on the evidence that can be made out, AND whether there are any prosecutors who determine that they could bring such charges, who also have the culliones to do it. It will take big ones!

__________________


"I was there and I saw what you did.... saw it with my own two eyes"
Phil Collins--In the Air Tonight

He may strongly take that position, but he will have little way to back it, because it is not true. All of the evidence that was accumulated about WMDs in Iraq and the threats from Iraq CAME FROM THE CIA, whose evidence was given to the administration, and then over to the president. The information was "very accurate" and widely accepted by everyone, as presented by the CIA. If the CIA is wrong, whose fault is that? The adminstation gets its information directly from the CIA, so it must rely upon that information as correct. There was a lot of evidence of mobile biological weapons facilites, etc...that turned out to be part of a large conspiracy, maybe even on the part of Saddam himself. (google: Curveball). There was other evidence as well, as with the weapons inspectors being kicked out and restricted.

Iraq was not a random spur of the moment thing. The 2nd Gulf war has been building up since the first. The WMD thing began with the Clinton administration and the 1994 (or 92', i cant remember) bombing of Iraq and other incursions/inspections. Saddam repeatedly leaked or built evidence to conclude that he did have WMDs, to gain an edge over his neighbors, but he didnt think it would spark a war. Not to mention Saddam was a tyrant and a murderer, and ruined most of his people and decimated all party opposition...too bad that isnt good enough to rally people to oust a dictator from power.

THose things all added up to the culmination of the Iraq war, and it was widely supported by politicians of both sides--and not just because of WMDs as everyone says. Congress knew the background of Iraq and what was going on there. Not to mention all of the other nations "fooled" by Bush, I would assume he had something to do with spinning the evidence to them too right? Everyone thought he had WMDs, its a common misconception to think that there wasnt evidence to support it. WHy the hell would Bush make a statement like that KNOWING it was not true? HES NOT STUPID. He wouldnt "lie" knowing he would have to make embarrasing and career ruining speeches later that would decimate his legitamacy if he "knew" there werent WMDs. My god, the ignorance of the world today.

If there was any grand evidence, it would have been front-page of every liberal paper in America.

And this whole "depraved indifference murder" has no correlation to international politics and international law.

Lets look at it though.

"recklessly engages in conduct which results in the death of [others]"---

What was reckless about the war? The evidence was built up right there. America has recently been under attack by terrorists, and known terrorists operated from within Iraq (contrary to popular beleif, yes they did)

An ideal war has no casualities, but in every war there is loss of life. Whenever any conflict occurs, whether for just or unjust reasons, there will be loss of life. Along these lines, it could be considered "reckless" for any war in all history to be declared, and those who do could be tried for "murder"--justly or not. You cant apply this transitive property of "murder" to decisions made in this position. If you want to blame someone for murder blame the terrorists who arm their wives and strap bombs to their children and tell them to go and die for allah.


"...consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exist. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in a situation."

Which is very important to note, because the same evidence given to Bush was given to congress, who with a majority, approved the war. As I said before, the evidence was there, the threat was there.


There will not be any prosecution.

__________________
"...Follow the crystal star to the pyre of the flame; there exists the dwelling of the spreading fire. The heart of this life rests upon the fate of that place, and what begins there sends a contagion to the rest of the universe.
As long as the fire burns we shall never be free..." (The Shadows of Yavara, Final Reclamation)

You either did not listen to the interview or did not understand it. Bugliosi is not talking about international law, he's talking about U.S. and state laws and prosecutions. Also, in the interview he clearly states that the CIA did NOT give information that there were womd or a grave and imminent threat, in fact said exactly the opposite. However those portions were deleted in the final documentation that went to the Congress and the media.

That, of course, is the crux of the matter..whether the evidence exists that he refers to in the interview. We already know the information the Congress received was false. The question is, who falsified it, and was it mistake or intentional.

__________________


"I was there and I saw what you did.... saw it with my own two eyes"
Phil Collins--In the Air Tonight

It doesnt matter what he states, it doesnt mean its fact. When i said international law, Im saying that he cannot judge standards or actions in international law/politics on a domestic level or law.

If he is saying that, he is wrong. Because the CIA did give said information, it was written in documents and... well Im going to make it really clear:

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs Central Intelligence Agency

Lets just say they havent updated this report anytime recently...

These were the reports given to the Bush administration from the CIA between 2001 and 2003. This is the actual CIA site...not the White House.
Read as much as you like and tell me that (without any more recent evidence) in 2003 you would not have thought Iraq had WMDs.



No, that is assumed. People have claimed it--to save their political image, but they really cant prove one way or the other. The evidence was not falsified---it was wrong.

__________________
"...Follow the crystal star to the pyre of the flame; there exists the dwelling of the spreading fire. The heart of this life rests upon the fate of that place, and what begins there sends a contagion to the rest of the universe.
As long as the fire burns we shall never be free..." (The Shadows of Yavara, Final Reclamation)

Although Bush had the higher position I think Cheney was the real force. Bush is too stupid. I suspect that eventually a lot of things will come out and I hope that I will live to see Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and the neo-cons in jail. Well, I can always hope.

You know those Cheney energy meetings that still don't have anything revealed about them? The only thing I can think of that would be so sensitive that we still don't even know who was there, is discussing the war plans and dividing up the spoils. Enron is not that big a deal. But if Cheney was already laying out the war plans well before 9/11, then that is a big deal. I don't mean just speculating about a future war, but already pushing the war as a decision already made. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would bet at least even money that this is so.

__________________
Follow your own path.