Please recommend that private citizen George W. Bush be PROSECUTED FOR MURDER.

[robertpaulsen]

I'm not just talking about clicking the recommend icon at the end of this post. While I would certainly appreciate the exposure on the greatest page, I'm talking about a recommendation to people in a position of power who are capable of pursuing justice against an invasion that should never have occurred. That means writing a letter to the US Attorney General, any of the 50 state Attorney Generals or any of the 2,700 District Attorneys and recommending that they act as famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has advocated by charging George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice with the crime of murder.

I've written earlier about my experience meeting Vincent Bugliosi http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4816435 and his reasons for why and methods for how to prosecute Bush, Cheney and Rice for murder in regard to the 4,000+ American troops killed in Iraq. I reference this in my letter to Jerry Brown, the Attorney General of my current state of residence, California. This is a rough draft of the letter I intend to mail this week:


Dear Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.,

On January 10, 2009, I attended a book signing and lecture by famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi at the North Hollywood Public Library. There to promote his most recent book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, Bugliosi spelled out the reasons why and the methods how George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice should be prosecuted for murder regarding the deaths of over 4,000 American troops in Iraq. Such a prosecution could be undertaken by the Attorney General of the United States, any of the 50 State Attorney Generals, or any of the 2,700 District Attorneys in the United States.

During his talk with a gathering of about 100 people, Bugliosi stated that he had spoken over the phone with you personally regarding his desire that you exercise the power you hold as Attorney General of the state of California to initiate such a prosecution. He mentioned that you asked him why he felt the charge of murder would be applicable in regard to the war in Iraq. Bugliosi said that he proceeded to explain the details of why such a serious charge is warranted against Bush, Cheney and Rice. While he indicated that you listened to everything he had to say, to this date you have not filed charges.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge you to take the initiative to file the charge of murder against Bush, Cheney and Rice. Remember they are now private citizens, there is no reason to wait for Congress to investigate and hold impeachment hearings. You have the power and since their deliberate fabrications to provoke an invasion of Iraq has resulted in the deaths of over 300 Californians, more than any other state, you have the moral obligation to lead the way and initiate the prosecution of these former officials for the crime of murder. I hope you still have your copy of Vincent Bugliosi's The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. While I encourage you to carefully read the book in its entirety, I specifically would like to single out the White Paper, the unclassified version of the NIE report issued by the CIA to Congress and the American public on October 4, 2002, as smoking gun proof that Bush, Cheney and Rice lied about the threat Saddam Hussein posed to this country, and thus are legally accountable for the murder of the 4,000+ American troops sent to die for their lies. Even if you just read pages 110-116 of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, you will understand how the White Paper omitted information and even inserted words not written in the original NIE report. Rather than summarize the NIE report truthfully, the White Paper deliberately distorted its conclusion that Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat. Bush, Cheney and Rice are fully responsible for these distortions.

Please stay in touch with Vincent Bugliosi and work with him to manage an effective prosecution against Bush, Cheney and Rice for the crime of murder. While the mainstream media chatter might try to paint such a prosecution as vengeance, know that you serve the cause of justice. There can be no greater damage, no greater miscarriage of justice than to let the crime of murder go unpunished, especially when the conspiracy is orchestrated at the highest levels of our government. To do so would be to acquiesce, to affirm through silence that someone can be above the law. Please stand up against this injustice.

Sincerely,

Robert Paulsen



For anyone else on DU living in California who would like to write a similar letter, here is the mailing address:

Attorney General's Office
California Department of Justice
Attn: Public Inquiry Unit
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550


Pending official confirmation, I also have written a letter to send to United States Attorney General Eric Holder. I shall not be sending that letter now, the current Acting Attorney General is Mark Filip. But upon confirmation, here is a rough draft of my letter that I will mail to the new Attorney General:



Dear Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.,

Congratulations on your recent confirmation. As the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government, I believe that you must hold true to the philosophical adage, "No Man is Above the Law". That includes the entire Executive Branch and everyone who has served under their command. Now that the Bush administration is no longer in office, the necessity of a lengthy investigation to determine whether anyone serving in the former administration committed a crime or misdemeanor that might initiate impeachment proceedings no longer exists. The necessity no longer exists because all former members of the Bush administration are now private citizens. A thorough criminal investigation to determine all the facts regarding criminal acts by former Bush administration members should be undertaken not for purposes of impeachment or censure in the Legislative Branch, but for indictment and prosecution in a court of law. In this pursuit of justice, I recommend that you arrest George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice on the charge of murder.

Murder? Perhaps you find the severity of the charge too shocking to consider. Is this the radical charge of vengeance from an ultra-liberal, what Bush himself refers to as "the angry Left"? Hardly. It represents the highly considered and esteemed legal opinion of famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. Always careful in his approach and moderate in his outlook, Bugliosi has used the same legal acumen that enabled him to successfully prosecute 105 out of 106 felony jury trials to write a book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. This book details how, by deliberately lying to Congress and the American public, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice are in fact guilty of the murder of over 4,000 American troops for which they can be held legally accountable, as well as the murder of anywhere from 100,000 to over 1 million Iraqi citizens, for which they may never face accountability in a court of law.

While Bugliosi does not discount the possibility that with a thorough criminal investigation and subsequent trial, additional charges of murder could be filed against other administration members such as George Tenet or Donald Rumsfeld, there already is enough existing evidence to arrest Bush, Cheney and Rice on the charge of murder. While I encourage you to carefully read the book in its entirety, I specifically would like to single out the White Paper, the unclassified version of the NIE report issued by the CIA to Congress and the American public on October 4, 2002, as smoking gun proof that Bush, Cheney and Rice lied about the threat Saddam Hussein posed to this country, and thus are legally accountable for the murder of the 4,000+ American troops sent to die for their lies. Even if you just read pages 110-116 of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, you will understand how the White Paper omitted information and even inserted words not written in the original NIE report. Rather than summarize the NIE report truthfully, the White Paper deliberately distorted its conclusion that Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat. Bush, Cheney and Rice are fully responsible for these distortions.

Please read The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, contact Vincent Bugliosi and initiate an effective prosecution against Bush, Cheney and Rice for the crime of murder. While the mainstream media chatter might try to paint such a prosecution as vengeance, know that you serve the cause of justice. There can be no greater damage, no greater miscarriage of justice than to let the crime of murder go unpunished, especially when the conspiracy is orchestrated at the highest levels of our government. To do so would be to acquiesce, to affirm through silence that someone can be above the law. Please stand up against this injustice.

Sincerely,

Robert Paulsen

Here is the mailing address:

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001


If you have any suggestions for amending these letters, I welcome your advice. But I encourage everyone here who believes that prosecuting Bush, Cheney and Rice for murder serves the pursuit of justice to write your own letters. Let those who represent justice in this country know where you stand!


Edited to add: Please check out http://www.prosecutegeorgebush.com/index.htm and find out how you can help make this possibility a reality.

[BOSSHOG]

1. I've checked with my conservative value handbook

and it clearly states we are a country of laws and laws must be obeyed. So I guess there would be no objection to putting bush on trial by those with conservative values.

[robertpaulsen]

5. Unfortunately, the neo-con handbook states hypocrisy is the #1 value.

I think that now that Republicans have seen their party fall from power in two of the three branches of the Federal Government, some are starting to wake up and see that their party has been hijacked by The Crazies.

[Me.]

2. Good Idea

If we don't keep pressing the point they'll let it slip by.

[robertpaulsen]

3. I like the idea of pressuring them on multiple fronts.

Especially since the Bush administration committed multiple crimes. It's good to see people like Olbermann and Maddow covering the torture crimes, it looks like we will get a full investigation there. But in addition to not letting up on that, we should never forget they are guilty of a crime that has no statute of limitations in this country: murder.

[bvar22]

4. According to this thread,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4879870

"Washington had ratified the UN convention on torture which required “all means, particularly penal law”to be used to bring proceedings against those violating it."


The US MUST prosecute.

[robertpaulsen]

6. Great thread. We have a moral obligation to "in order to form a more perfect union...

establish justice".

Nice to know we have a legal obligation as well.

[robertpaulsen]

7. One more point about violating treaties.

Nuremberg Lesson for Iraq War: It’s Murder
by Michael Mandel

This month marks the 60th anniversary of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the basic legal document for the trial of the major Nazi war criminals that commenced in November 1945.
One of the great innovations of that charter was the charge of "Crimes Against Peace," defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances."

In a famous passage from their judgment of the following year, the four judges of the tribunal (American, British, French and Russian) declared the crime of aggressive war to be "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."


http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0830-33.htm

[hippywife]

8. I already did.

I went to whitehouse.gov and send a note telling him how pleased I am at what he's done in just his first day.

I mentioned that while I know has many pressing issues, beside prosecuting the Bush Admin for war crimes, I'd like for him to move Helen Thomas back to the front row.

And to really prove that he's serious about the economy, instead of just freezing the pay of the staff, I suggested that he announce he will keep the same salary he made as a Senator until we have weathered this storm. It's not like he has to pay rent anymore, right?

I only had 500 characters so had to make it short and sweet. Watch using the enter key when you send a message. It's not a return...it submits the form!

:hi:

[robertpaulsen]

9. Good for you. I sent a bunch of stuff on change.gov when Obama was P-E.

Stay vigilant. Our voices will be heard.

:hi:

[robertpaulsen]

10. Morning kick

:kick:

[Romulox]

11. Basic legal principles dictate that if Bush is guilty of murder, everyone who encouraged, assisted,

or counseled him to commit the crime is just as guilty as he is.

Which is why nobody will ever be prosecuted...

[file83]

12. True, however, if they did so BECAUSE they are lied to by Bush, then it's moot.

They wouldn't be guilty because they were acting on disinformation, and acted EXACTLY the way he wanted them to.

[Romulox]

33. The disinformation did not originate from the WH. I don't mention this to defend W,

but rather to implicate his co-conspirators...

[Tab]

13. Although I hate these K&R fishing expeditions (I realize you're not doing it)

some are so blatant, and the ruin the point of the greatest page, I will say this is absolutely one topic I will recommend, and wish I could recommend more.

Cynically, I don't think we'll see it, but I'd like to.

[Redstone]

14. Ain't gonna happen. Sorry to be the one to have to break the news to you.

Redstone

[robertpaulsen]

15. You ain't breaking shit. I think we both hope you're wrong.

I just hope you don't let your cynicism drive you to apathy. All it takes is one attorney with a conscience and cajones.

[Occam Bandage]

16. GWB will be convicted of the particular crime of murder the same day Clinton will be.

That is to say, never.

[robertpaulsen]

17. If Clinton had committed even one genuine murder...

The VRWC would have obtained an indictment, at the least. They're evil fuckers, but where Clinton is concerned, I have to give them credit for tenacity.

[Occam Bandage]

19. Why would you count the Iraq war dead,

and not the hundreds of civilians of Kosovo or the half-million dead Iraqis from Clinton's campaign of sanctions? I mean, calling it 'murder' whenever policy results in death seems like we could be setting a very bad precedent. Why not, instead, look for crimes for which there is actually some sort of legal precedent for prosecution? Torture is, I think, the best bet. Wiretapping is a pretty good bet, too. Both are crimes that violate laws that were intended to cover the types of actions that were committed.

[robertpaulsen]

20. Please, please read the book. Bugliosi explains the reasons why.

He explains all the legal justifications much better than I can, but I'll try to condense. Clinton cannot be held legally accountable for civilian deaths in war any more than Bush can. But Bush can be held responsible for the deaths of any US citizens. Not because Bush made a mistake sending those troops to fight a country that did not pose a threat to US, but because Bush knew prior to the invasion that Iraq did not pose a threat to US and lied about it to Congress and the American public and deliberately sent 4,000+ American troops needlessly to their deaths. That's murder.

[Occam Bandage]

21. But is falsifying a particular pretense to war really the same

as committing a murder? I mean, suppose Bush told America, "look, it's complex, but try to follow. Iraq is a destabilizing influence on the Middle East, but has a tradition of respect for secular law, and so if we depose the tyrant currently sitting on top of Iraq and replace it with a democracy, we can start a chain reaction of popular democratic revolutions backed by respect for and fear of American power, leading to a major growth in freedom (and with it, economic opportunity for American investment, media export, energy, and manufacturing companies) across the Middle East," and then invaded with American opinion split but slightly opposed, would that constitute "murder?" I mean, that's a pretty optimistic picture (and the real thing didn't turn out anything like that wonderful little neoconservative dream), but nobody can say that anything there is an outright lie.

I really find it hard to buy that a prosecution for the crime of murder depends on whether you selectively and deliberately cherry-picked and omitted evidence when selling your illegal war policy to the public.

[Jambalaya]

22. Caveat Pre Emptor

Well,you cant't yell "Fire!" or "Terrorist Attack" in a crowded venue --and in doing so,cause a stampede-possibly resulting in many deaths, without expecting civil and/or criminal accountabilty.

I for one will never forget the deliberate deception about the WMD.Nor the cavalier and callous indifference exhibited by Bush when he openly flaunted in a video spoof,,that he was looking for WMD under the rug in the Offal Office.That got a lot of yuks from the attendant sycophants.

I wonder just how amusing the grieving families of the dead and wounded involved in the Iraq invasion ,found their Commander in Chief's appalling antics?I wonder how funny they think it is now?

[Occam Bandage]

23. Nobody is saying that what Bush did was right, or that it wasn't morally repugnant.

What I am saying is that it is absolutely preposterous to claim that a President can be held liable for the particular crime of murder if his case for war ends up being false. I mean, that suggests that if the case for war was non-false but stupid (say, if he had said "we're going to Iraq to free them, because terrorists hate freedom"), then there's no murder, but if he also makes up some stuff about WMD in his speeches, then suddenly, hey, we got murder in the first degree here.

I mean, are all Presidential falsehoods that lead to some foreseeable deaths murder? Suppose that as a result of Kennedy's rhetoric about a non-existent "missile gap," we ramped up spy plane overflights of the Soviet Union, and a plane got shot down and the pilot died in the crash. Should, in that case, Kennedy be impeached, removed from office, and then tried and imprisoned for first-degree murder of that pilot? That just seems ridiculous.

[sohndrsmith]

27. To borrow some creative expression from Gertrude Stein:

A war crime
is a war crime
is a war crime...

There is nothing illegitimate or inappropriate in acknowledging that such action seems probable and reasonable to pursue.

It has nothing to do with whether or not a war was successful or not, or even false (as you say - but I'm hesitant to agree with you wholeheartedly on that one... I think this could probably be a pretty serious component of any legitimate legal action).

But there is so much more that specifics are almost moot at this point. My biggest concern is that we prioritize this at the expense of ignoring the emergency crises within our country (because of the destructiveness of this Bush person), and end up finding ourselves in further disaster if we don't understand the time sensitivity of our issues.

This in NO WAY means I don't consider holding Bush accountable supremely important - because I do... but I worry that we are in such poor shape we will end up not having the national strength or means to deal with this properly, resulting in neither issue being solved or improved. I'm just being honest... I just hope I'm not misinterpreted.

If the country in general was in better shape, I would be pushing for this action to happen yesterday. But we're very fragile and I don't think it's unrealistic to consider that prioritization (which I'm sure the Administration is already doing for us) is critical to ensure things aren't done carelessly or ignored because we're putting all our energies into something less immediately urgent.

I don't know. I'm so angry it's hard for me to say something like this, but I do believe it's worth considering...

[robertpaulsen]

34. The key to appropriate prioritization lies in how Obama delegates authority.

You raise a valid point about how Bush has created so many crises in this country that there is the risk one might reach a point of no return of disastrous proportions. All indications that President Obama (God, I love writing that) has given is that he is aware of the enormity of it all and will delegate each crisis appropriately to the department best suited to handle it. In the case of war crimes by the Bush misadministration, President Obama just needs to let AG Holder have free rein.

But if the Obama administration doesn't want to address the issue of murder charges specifically, they don't have to. Every state in the union has had troops murdered by Bush. Any of the 50 state Attorney Generals or any of the 2,700 District Attorneys could file charges and have Bush arrested and the Obama administration need not be involved in any way.

[jaundicedi]

28. You can avoid this whole argument...

by charging Bush, et al under the RICO act instead of for murder.

[robertpaulsen]

30. Let me try to clarify that.

The murder charge is against a President sending American troops to their deaths fighting against a non-existent threat. In this particular case, Bush lied to sell it. If some hypothetical President sent us to a hypothetical war against a country that posed no threat and sold it with the truth ("I know this country poses no threat to us, but we need their oil since we can't produce enough here to meet your greedy demand") I would hope that a conscientious public could convince their conscientious Congresspersons to impeach that demagogue's ass and then absolutely prosecute that fucker for murder.

Your Kennedy analogy is not comparable. It seems to me you are confusing mistaken foreign policy decisions over bad intelligence, which Kennedy and many other Presidents might have done regarding the missile gap, with a deliberate falsification of intelligence reports, which is what Bugliosi has detailed that Bush, Cheney and Rice are guilty of.

[deaniac21]

24. Your reasoned and thoughtful opinions are totally out of place

in this thread.

[robertpaulsen]

31. Can you provide an example of a post on this thread lacking reason or thoughtfulness?

You're certainly welcome to agree or disagree with any of them, including my OP, but I am mystified as to how you can classify any of the other opinions posted on this thread as lacking reason or thoughtfulness, which is what you seem to be implying by singling out one poster as being out of place in this thread for including a reasoned and thoughtful opinion. Would you care to elaborate on that?

[deaniac21]

32. It speaks for itself.

[robertpaulsen]

35. Well. So you don't care to elaborate.

And in not elaborating, you provide neither reason nor thoughtfulness to this discussion. How ironic.

[deaniac21]

36. You are so used to your point of view that you think you have

some semblance of normalcy. Alas, you are a loon.

[robertpaulsen]

38. And you decide to challenge my point of view with name-calling rather than reason or thoughtfulness.

The thickness of the irony is getting into gum paste territory.

[robertpaulsen]

29. Interesting hypothetical. What if Bush had command of the English language? Or the truth?

What might the world be like today? Would Congress have found it easier to stand up to him or would they have fallen deeper into lockstep? What more could the neo-cons have gotten away with?

The bottom line is, Bush had to lie. Because the truth is Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the US. So if he had told the truth, theoretically he would be that much easier to prosecute, if you read the link I provided in post #7. Then again, that link is in reference to an international agreement that I'm not sure if Bugliosi detailed as part of his legal strategy.

Have you read The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder yet? Because it seems to me you are not philosophically opposed to punishing Bush for what you describe as an "illegal war policy", but are more specifically questioning the legal basis for the murder charge. But just trying to reason this out on a policy level, the major crime is the war itself, that 4,000+ Americans were sent to their deaths to defend against a non-existent threat that Bush knew before he sent them did not exist.

[deaniac21]

37. Bugliosi = loon. Bush = loon.

[robertpaulsen]

39. I love how you keep my thread at the top with your dizzying intellect.

Keep it up. Since you are so intimately acquainted with the legal acumen of Vincent Bugliosi, I dare you to provide an example from his book that would match your description. Surely you must have read it since you can equate his mental competence to Bush with such confidence. I can't wait to see how you buttress such a lucid opinion!

[wiggs]

18. Prosecution should not be pursued for political reasons (a la Siegelman) and

by the same token prosecutions should not be avoided for political reasons. One is as wrong as the other.

There are many issues for which investigation is warranted. A partial list would include the Seigelman issue, attorney firings, lying to congress (Iraq and Medicare), domestic spying, torture (far more than 1 waterboarding case), Hatch Act violations (Rove giving speeches to department employees on how best to get republicans elected using policy), using funds without congressional approval (hundreds of millions of Afganistan money for Iraq before authorization), Iraq invasion, fraud (billions of dollars missing), and more.

You're obviously more in tune with resources and articles than I am (although I have the Krugman article and the Turley interview)...is there a good website or set of links that eloquently talks about the case for prosecution, not just murder, but the whole gamut?

They investigated the Clinton's firing of WH travel agents like it was treason. That was clearly political. I don't want a political investigation...neither do I want a political non-investigation. The suspicions are as clear as can be....any AG would have more than enough to start with.

I'm interested in how Obama is going to hold them to account...I believe he will. I hope for prosecution but I believe he may find another way to discredit them completely but stop short of prosecution.

[snake in the grass]

25. As a new resident of CA...

...I thank you for this information. I will get on the ball.

[kas125]

26. Too late to recommend, but I did go to the local prosecutor's

office with a friend a couple months ago to ask him to do it. He wouldn't even meet with us, we had to leave all the info. And of course, he never called us, even after we went back again.