Bugliosi Wants Bush Charged with Murder

Bugliosi Wants Bush Charged with Murder
by Russell Mokhiber

Former California prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wants President Bush charged with murder.

Bugliosi - who in the early 1970s successfully prosecuted Charles Manson for the murder of Sharon Tate and six others - lays out his case against Bush in The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (Perseus Books, 2008).

The book will hit book stores tomorrow - Tuesday May 27, 2008.

“My motivation for writing this book is simple - to bring about justice,” Bugliosi says in a video posted on the book’s web site (prosecutionofbush.com).

“George Bush has gotten away with murder - thousands of murders,” Bugliosi says. “And no one is doing anything about it. The American people can’t let him do this.”

Bugliosi wants one or more of the fifty state attorneys general or one of the nation’s hundreds of district attorneys to step up and prosecute Bush for murder.

“I have set forth in my book the jurisdictional basis for the Attorney General in each of the fifty states - plus the hundreds upon hundreds of district attorneys in counties within the states - to prosecute George Bush for the murders of any soldier or soldiers from their state or county who were killed in Iraq fighting George Bush’s war,” Bugliosi says in the video on his web site.

“I don’t think it is too unreasonable to believe that at least one prosecutor out there in America - maybe many more - will be courageous enough to say - this is the United States of America. And in America no one is above the law. George Bush has gotten away with murder. No one is doing anything about it. And maybe this book will change that.”

Bugliosi argues that Bush misled the nation into a war that has killed more than 4,000 Americans.

At the center of Bugliosi’s indictment of Bush is a October 7, 2002 speech to the nation in which Bush claims that Saddam Hussein was a great danger to this nation either by attacking us with his weapons of mass destruction, or giving these weapons to some terrorist group.

“And he said - the attack could happen on any given day - meaning the threat was imminent,” Bugliosi says.

“The only problem for George Bush - and if he were prosecuted, there is no way he could get around this - is that on October 1, 2002, six days earlier, the CIA sent George Bush its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified top secret report. Page eight clearly and unequivocally says that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country. In fact, the report says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared that America was about to attack him.”

“We know that Bush was telling millions upon millions of unsuspecting Americans exactly the opposite of what his own CIA was telling him,” Bugliosi said. “We know that George Bush took this nation to war on a lie. Who is going to pay for all of this? Someone has to pay. And the person who has to pay obviously is directly responsible for all of the death horror and suffering. And that person is George W. Bush.”

“The majority of the American people probably are going to find it difficult to accept that the President of the United States, the most powerful man on earth, would engage in conduct that smacks of such great criminality. You just don’t expect something like this from an American president. However, I’m very confident that once they read the book, they will be overwhelmed by the evidence against Bush. They will be convinced that he is guilty of murder and should be prosecuted. In the book, I lay out the legal architecture for the case against Bush, all of the evidence of the guilt against Bush and the jurisdiction to prosecute him. I even set forth proposed cross-examination questions of him if he takes the witness stand at trial.”

As a state prosecutor in Los Angeles, Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson and members of his “family” for the 1969 murders of Sharon Tate and six others.

Bugliosi says he lost only one of the 106 felony cases he tried as a prosecutor. He says he won 21 out of 21 murder cases.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/26/9199/

And I'm with him on this one!

Charge Bush with murder...it sounds extreme, but I think it's the right move.

K&R

He's broken nearly every law that we have on the books. Past time he was brought up on charges...except that we are not a nation of laws- we are a nation of aggression.

That is music to my fucking ears. Get 'em, Bugliosi!

is an accessory to murder? Does the fact that someone who voted for the resolution later refused to express regret for their vote have an impact?

Just askin.

who claim they didn't even bother to read the CIA documents, but went ahead anyway and advocated on the Senate floor in favor of the IWR?

What about them? If Bush committed mass murder, they must surely be held accountable as accessories to the same murders.

they ALL have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS

so do I.

... if our nation is to have any means of achieving the type of standards that reflect the vast
majority of citizens. Who would like a nation into war? Not many, but Bush etc. did just that.

Bugliosi is right and should be supported. I'm buying his book tomorrow.

Now, as for who knew what when, here's the goods. They all knew - the information negating WMD
didn't need to be viewed in a CIA secret report, although that's highly relevant.

It was all out there, in public, in plain view: THEY KNEW!

(A foot note in The Money Party (5) "Us" versus "Them")

:wow:

Probably not but you never know. Some more reasoning needs to be applied, unqualified as I am to
question Bugliosi. Whoever brought the case would have to think about all that implies which would
include this factoid: there were people who funded this knowing what was going on, even if they
skate on knowing before the IWR. What are you going to do when the defendant or the public says,
where are the rest of them? This is fairly clear logical point so it probably has no bearing on the
law whatsoever.

It's great that Bugliosi put it out there. He wrote a great book on 2000 also. What a guy!
Anyone who gets a conviction for murder while acknowledging that the defendant, Manson, was not
physically present at any murder scene is one awesome lawyer.

Maybe there's some ambitious attorney who will convene a grand jury to consider the murder indictment
and, if they go forward, then issue a bill of impeachment. According to Jefferson's rules for the
House, impeachment can originate in grand juries; said impeachment resolutions must be considered by
the House of Reps. Makes sense, if they indict for murder, then that's sufficient for impeachment -
they could consider the murders in Iraq and elsewhere also.

Maybe we'll soon :toast: to a fine lawyer somewhere in America.

Presidential Selection called "None Dare Call It Treason". Also worth reading. It's a little dated now though.

:hi:

Thats when I realized how totally full of it the system was.

Powerful case, nobody even talks about in among the corporate media. Hmmm ... snarky to Gore, election
stolen, great book on the whole deal AND - nothing.


The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution (on Bush v. Gore &
election theft). The guy is the Sheriff.

:toast:

was on the political videos threads a must see.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x138379

My anger over the war in Iraq, some will say, is palpable. If I sound too angry for some, what should I be greatly angry about -- that a referee gave what I thought was a bad call to my hometown football, basketball, or baseball team, and it may have cost them the game? I don't think so.

Virtually all of us cling desperately to life, either because of our love of life and/ or our fear of death. I'm told there is a passage in a novel by Dostoyevsky in which a character in the story exclaims, "If I were condemned to live on a rock, chained to a rock in the lashing sea, and all around me were ice and gales and storm, I would still want to live. Oh God, just to live, live, live!"

So nothing is as important in life as life and death. We fear and loathe the thought of our own death, even if it's a peaceful one after we've outlived the normal longevity. We fear not only the loss of our own lives, but the lives of our parents and sisters and brothers, as well as our relatives and close friends. We don't think of our children too much in this regard because our children, in the normal scheme of things, are supposed to outlive us. When they die before us, the already hideous nature of death becomes unbearable. And that's when they die a normal and peaceful death from illness. If the death is from an accident, like a car collision, the death of the child, if possible, is even more unbearable.

So one can hardly imagine the gut-tearing pain and horror when the only child of a couple, a nineteen-year-old son, call him Tim, the center of his parents' lives, whom they showered with their love and lived through vicariously in his triumphs on the athletic field and in the classroom, and who was excited as he looked forward to life, planning to wed his high school sweetheart and go on to become a police officer (or lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc.) dies the most horrible of deaths from a roadside bomb in a far-off country, and comes home in a metal box, * his body so shattered that his parents are cautioned by the military not to open it because what is inside ("our Timmy") is "unviewable." (To make the point hit home more with you, can you imagine if it was your son who was killed in Iraq and came home "unviewable" in a box? Yes, your son Scott, or Paul, or Michael, or Ronnie, Todd, Peter, Marty, Sean, or Bobby.)

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Palpable_Anger_0527.html

He can be charged with several crimes after he vacates the WH.