Are you in favor of seeing that George W. Bush be prosecuted for the murder of American soldiers and countless

Question

Iraqi people both soldiers and civilians as a result of his Iraq war like former Federal Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi suggests - which will also include Cheney and Rice?

Answer 1

No, not at all. However, I do have plenty of time to watch terrorists get prosecuted.

Amazing how people would even want to pursue this while terrorists reload and kill.

You may not like Bush or his presidential skills but to ask questions such as these is infantile, baseless, and absurd.

Answer 2

It will go nowhere. He will be fighting a losing battle.

Answer 3

NO

Answer 4

No. But we might consider prosecuting all the leaders in the United Nations, and all the Congressmen and Senators, who authorized the President to wage this war. Bugliosi is weasel. He always has been.

Answer 5

I guess if you would have supported doing the same for JFK then I guess you could say that it would apply to GWB.  However, the CIC has the authority to order troops into combat so there is no basis for your request.

Answer 6

You bet. Gulf War II was illegal and immoral to begin with.

Everyone from the late John Paul II to the U.N. told Shrub not to go through with it, but did he listen? No. He and his cronies must own up to their ****-ups.

Answer 7

Yes.

No justice, no peace.

Answer 8

yes, justice and peace

Answer 9

No.

How about holding the terrorists who are bombing the innocent Iraqi people responsible for those killings instead?

BTW, you are just quoting something from some hasbeen who is trying to push a book he is selling, thats all. It will go nowhere.

Answer 10

No, go read a book about politics and government and then think about it....it is completely preposterous to accuse Bush of murder simply because a war is controversial.  That is not the definition of a war crime.  Look at Vietnam, did any president get charged with anything there? no, and that war had far more casualties, far more controversy, and a draft which meant people were ordered/forced to go fight unlike our current exclusively volunteer armed forces.

Answer 11

no why dont people see that the person on the microphone of whatever platform country he/she represents is exactly that ??the spokesperson  for either congress government or other body thats been formed to make decisions just like the foreman of a jury unlike some that do it by dictatorship see the difference

Answer 12

No.  When a country is at war, people (soldiers, etc) die.  Most Iraqi civilians and many of the soldiers and police have been killed by fellow Iraqi's or insurgents from other countries bordering Iraq.

Answer 13

That guy you mentioned has made a living off of writing conspiracy books for the past 25 years. He is not credible.

Yes-at one time he was someone-but nowadays hes a clown.

Answer 14

To the fullest

Answer 15

Of course he should be prosecuted, not just for the murders of American soldiers, but for war-crimes as well.  Put Cheney and Rice up there for conspiring with like intent.

Bush, really, should have been impeached four years ago for the former, and executed by now, for the latter.  

Congress has made his murders possible, and a German judge ruled around 2006, that a trial for war-crimes was not possible under present rules even though the prosecution's  logic was similar as the n**i Nuremburg trials.  Go figure.

Answer 16

Well, I think you would have a hard time convicting him of war crimes, although I do agree that he has committed such crimes.  It is true, as SoStay has suggested, that war crimes have not necessarily been committed just because a war is controversial, but when a country launches an unprovoked, aggressive war, as the US did in its invasion of Iraq, that definitely is a war crime.  In fact, aggressive war is considered the worst of all war crimes, because it leads to the others, such as torture and atrocities, both of which have been committed by Americans in pursuit of an elusive "victory" in Iraq, and the overarching "War on Terror."

However, a very good case can be made for impeachment of Bush and his removal from office.  There have been two presidents impeached in US history, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.  In both cases the impeachments were driven by radical Republicans, whose motives were purely partisan, and in both cases the defendants were acquitted by the Senate.  Several other presidents have been threatened with impeachment, but no president in US history has so richly deserved this punishment as George Bush does.

The number of Bush's crimes are legion, and it would be a simple matter to make a strong case for them.  But there is at least one crime for which there is no question of guilt, and that is the warrantless wiretapping that Bush authorized, in direct violation of a law, the FISA Act.  Bush admitted, in a public forum, that he had authorized warrantless wiretaps and would continue to do so -- to keep America safe, of course.  Regardless of his motivations, he broke the law.

What is worse, there was no reason to break the law, since the FISA court had only denied warrants on a handful of cases, out of thousands, since it was set up in the late 70s.  And contrary to what seems to be a prevalent notion, it was not necessary to wait for a warrant to start a wiretap.  It was only necessary to provide probable cause within seventy-two hours.  So no terrorists would slip through the net while the authorities awaited a judge's signature on a warrant.