Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Vincent Bugliosi gets the Chomsky treatment

  1. Jul 7, 2008 #1
    Welcome to the world of the "liberal" media in the US:

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/06/business/BUGLIOSI07.php
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 7, 2008 #2

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    "... - but did not expect a virtual blackout."

    Why would anyone take Bugliosi seriously? While the country may have been taken to war fraudulently, sadly there is no law against this war because it hasn't been remediated by those that continue it in the congress. For better or worse the American public is ensnared in the stupidity of the current administration's actions. Now congress could choose to remove him from office - but look at the puppet master that would assume the reins in that case - the old dissembler - Mr Trigger Happy I-thought-I-saw-a-bird-on-my-right Dick Cheney himself. The country should take some sense of ease that Bush in these last few months merely poses the threat of incremental stupidity, before being ushered into his old age to busy himself with the details of his breathlessly anticipated library.
     
  4. Jul 7, 2008 #3
    He has a perfect record of 21 murder prosecutions, and he thinks that the president can be successfully prosecuted for murder.

    I didn't realize there might be a case against Bush for the murder of American troops, but there is no doubt that the executive orders for torture and suspension of Habeus Corpus at Guantanamo bay, along with warrantless wiretapping on American soil, are a violation of the constitution which makes Bush guilty of high treason, which is punishable by death.

    Being the president of the US is no cakewalk, you swear to uphold and honor the constitution, and if you fail at that it clearly says the punishment is death. I only wish Saddam could have lived to see the day.
     
  5. Jul 7, 2008 #4
    What do you mean by welcome to the world of the 'liberal' media in the US. Do you not own a televison? There are lots of 'conservative' talk shows out there.

    Everytime I hear, 'oh, its the liberal media this, liberal media that'...........makes me roll my eyes.
     
  6. Jul 7, 2008 #5

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    My opinion is that he is on a fool's errand. The Constitution is the only Law the President answers to. He can in theory pardon himself even as regards to implied criminal matters that Bugliosi raises.

    What he cannot do is survive in his office from impeachment and conviction if the country finds sufficient grievance. If he is such a legal eagle, why do you suppose that he doesn't grasp such a fundamental issue as jurisdiction?

    You don't possibly think that he might be kicking up bottom mud to promote his crackpot book do you? No chance that he would be out for personal gain by making controversial allegations tackling these high profile issues?

    The blush is off the bloom as far as George Bush goes. No one is apparently confused about him looking at his approval ratings. No petitions to repeal the 22 Amendment for instance.

    How is it he isn't getting coverage by the "liberal media" again? I find 115,000 entries for "Vincent Bugliosi" +prosecution +Bush and most of them appear to be about this book.
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+"Vincent+Bugliosi"++prosecution++Bush&start=0&sa=N
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2008
  7. Jul 7, 2008 #6

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How many of those hits belong to CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, LA Times, Wash. Post, Chic. Tribune, NPR, USA Today, WSJ, Philly Inquirer or other such mainstream media sources?
     
  8. Jul 7, 2008 #7

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    He was being sarcastic.
     
  9. Jul 7, 2008 #8

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The number of websites listed has absolutely no meaning since it just means that any of those words in your search string were found on some website. Probabaly half of those sites would be gardening websites.
     
  10. Jul 7, 2008 #9
    According to the WSJ Law Blog, It would appear Bugliosi thinks the liberal media is afraid to be associated with the book. I tend to agree with that opinion. Apparently the word murder is a bit too strong in a non fiction work.

    Impeach the President The Case Against Bush and Cheney
    Dr. Dennis D. Loo, Peter Phillips
    , did receive media coverage.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/07/07/in-new-book-manson-prosecutor-lays-out-murder-case-against-bush/
     
  11. Jul 7, 2008 #10

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I wouldn't say that. I won't argue that it is anything but a very crude measure of net presence. But that said I did page through a bit before posting the link and noted that out at citation 388 - all that Google presented me - they were mostly relevant to the search criteria. Now are they all on-line book sellers? That wasn't my impression - clearly a subjective statement on my part.

    But I do think it is gross indication of net presence, and I'd say, that it is not exactly the case that no one knows about this book. Neither does that result indicate that there may be any particular political conspiracy to silence it. I think Bugliosi's premise that prosecution of a sitting Commander in Chief ordering troops in harm's way is open to any interpretation of criminal negligence - despite whatever fraud may have been involved in taking them to that circumstance - is totally unfounded. It would appear that it is a prerogative of office. Whatever remedy there may be lies only with the Congress in this situation and Congress chooses not to act in this regard.

    As an aside, at the very least you should give me some credit that the search criteria was not flawed to the extent that it was particularly inclusive of sites exclusive to nurturing radishes. (Though some hits do occur, they still seem to reference the book.)
     
  12. Jul 7, 2008 #11

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    It's unclear to me why anyone after consulting counsel would want to promote the book on their programming. I just don't see the basic premise of his desired prosecution, or the jurisdiction he could invoke. I don't see it as a "liberal" aversion, so much as perhaps a "crackpot" aversion, reflecting on the perceived quality of the programming as opposed to the politics of the programming.

    After all while Bugliosi may enjoy freedom of speech, why would he expect to enjoy free promotion by the media of any political bent?
     
  13. Jul 7, 2008 #12
    Perhaps because just about every other author has.

    Actually he is getting plenty of free publicity by the local media. The major media won't touch it , not even Imus. It is, however, now all over youtube like white on rice.
     
  14. Jul 7, 2008 #13
    Yeah, but so was Ron Paul.
     
  15. Jul 7, 2008 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Liberal, yes. Utterly insane, no. This didn't make the mainstream press for the same reason the mainstream press doesn't run a daily column by Al Frankin.
     
  16. Jul 7, 2008 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In those 21 cases, he had the law and precedent on his side. He has neither for this idea. It's pretty absurd.
     
  17. Jul 7, 2008 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    His book is currently 14th (last week 12th) on the nonfiction bestseller list. With 8 categories, that means there are roughly 104 books ahead of him. How much press should they be getting?

    LP is right, though, what is the media going to say? 'Provocative premise, but we checked with our legal advisors and they say he's a nut.'
     
  18. Jul 8, 2008 #17
    Has anyone read or listened to the book? You can download the audio version of the book on demand, if you subscribe to an appropriate online service.

    I am on the fourth chapter of the book, and Bugliosi has not yet explained his plan for finding precedent/jurisdiction for this prosecution.

    The question is, did they read the book first?
     
  19. Jul 8, 2008 #18

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    While I haven't read the book, I freely admit, I am sincerely curious about what his premise could be because I can't imagine that there is any authority that presents a check to the President's primacy in conducting the actions of the Armed Forces.

    Would Bugliosi also have brought charges against Lincoln for his cold realization that the War between the States could be won merely by attrition? That immigration to the North from Europe was replacing war losses and the South did not have that advantage?

    His strategy was cold. But it was successful. Was that murder too? And by what authority could he have ever been tried for it?

    When you complete the book, I hope you will share, as best you can relate it, his thinking.
     
  20. Jul 11, 2008 #19
    I have listened to enough of the book to be convinced: I believe Bugliosi has an outstanding case for prosecuting George W Bush
    for murder in a US court. I found the book excellent in general, with 70-85% of it being direct quotations from primary sources, without any of the extended conjecture that we usually see in political bash-books.

    I think that the best way for me to present the legal theory in this forum is to answer the questions and objections that you all have made:

    Bugliosi argues that the fraud nullifies the consent of congress.

    In America, no one is above the law. There is nothing in the murder laws which say they don't apply to presidents.

    The president cannot pardon himself, remember that Ford was the one who pardoned Nixon.

    Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the US Constititution says:

    "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

    The case has jourisdiction in federal court, in all 50 state courts, and in every district that was home to a US serviceman who was killed in Iraq.

    Why don't you think he has the law on his side?

    Bush did not physically commit the murders, but we know that does not absolve him.

    Bush didn't specifically intend for American soldiers to get killed, but because he knew that a loss of life in the conflict would be inevitable, he is liable for murder if we show that he had reckless disregard for the victims lives.

    The truly frightening part of the book is when Bugliosi presents a mountain of direct quotation evidence that supports the conclusion. Going beyond his public statements at press conferences, we see a man who began a war out of selfishness who has no regard for the lives of the soldiers that are dying out there.

    Feel free to ask specific questions if you are not yet convinced. Bugliosi addressed every objection I could think of, he didn't cop out at all. I also recommend buying the book, since at the very least it is a handy reference for all the quotations that reveal the deception and incompetence surrounding the Iraq war.
     
  21. Jul 11, 2008 #20
    Where do we find "reckless disregard"?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Vincent Bugliosi gets the Chomsky treatment
  1. Noam Chomsky (Replies: 44)

  2. Treatment through prayer (Replies: 13)

Loading...