The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

The Legal Framework for the Prosecution

That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution. -Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765

No living Homo sapiens is above the law. -(Notwithstanding our good friends and legal ancestors across the water, this is a fact that requires no citation.)

With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I've been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for "the little guy"), my political orientation is not rigid. For instance, I supported John McCain's run for the presidency in 2000. More to the point, whether I'm giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read.

Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he'd still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did.

Let's look at the way some of the leading liberal lights (and, of course, the rest of the entire nation with the exception of those few recommending impeachment) have treated the issue of punishment for Bush's cardinal sins. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about "the false selling of the Iraq War. We were railroaded into an unnecessary war." Fine, I agree. Now what? Krugman just goes on to the next paragraph. But if Bush falsely railroaded the nation into a war where over 100,000 people died, including 4,000 American soldiers, how can you go on to the next paragraph as if you had been writing that Bush spent the weekend at Camp David with his wife? For doing what Krugman believes Bush did, doesn't Bush have to be punished commensurately in some way? Are there no consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions?

Al Franken on the David Letterman show said, "Bush lied to us to take us to war" and quickly went on to another subject, as if he was saying "Bush lied to us in his budget."

Senator Edward Kennedy, condemning Bush, said that "Bush's distortions misled Congress in its war vote" and "No President of the United States should employ distortion of truth to take the nation to war." But, Senator Kennedy, if a president does this, as you believe Bush did, then what? Remember, Clinton was impeached for allegedly trying to cover up a consensual sexual affair. What do you recommend for Bush for being responsible for more than 100,000 deaths? Nothing? He shouldn't be held accountable for his actions? If one were to listen to you talk, that is the only conclusion one could come to. But why, Senator Kennedy, do you, like everyone else, want to give Bush this complete free ride?

The New York Times, in a June 17, 2004, editorial, said that in selling this nation on the war in Iraq, "the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/ 11, . . . inexcusably selling the false Iraq-Al Qaeda claim to Americans." But gentlemen, if this is so, then what? The New York Times didn't say, just going on, like everyone else, to the next paragraph, talking about something else.

In a November 15, 2005, editorial, the New York Times said that "the president and his top advisers . . . did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections." But if it's "obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans" in taking them to a war that tens of thousands of people have paid for with their lives, now what? No punishment? If not, under what theory? Again, you're just going to go on to the next paragraph?

I'm not going to go on to the next unrelated paragraph.

In early December of 2005, a New York Times-CBS nationwide poll showed that the majority of Americans believed Bush "intentionally misled" the nation to promote a war in Iraq. A December 11, 2005, article in the Los Angeles Times, after citing this national poll, went on to say that because so many Americans believed this, it might be difficult for Bush to get the continuing support of Americans for the war. In other words, the fact that most Americans believed Bush had deliberately misled them into war was of no consequence in and of itself. Its only consequence was that it might hurt his efforts to get support for the war thereafter. So the article was reporting on the effect of the poll findings as if it was reporting on the popularity, or lack thereof, of Bush's position on global warming or immigration. Didn't the author of the article know that Bush taking the nation to war on a lie (if such be the case) is the equivalent of saying he is responsible for well over 100,000 deaths? One would never know this by reading the article.

If Bush, in fact, intentionally misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him? Since many Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only one person, if we weren't speaking of the president of the United States as the defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous.** But we are dealing with the president of the United States here.

On the other hand, the intensity of rage against Bush in America has been such (it never came remotely this close with Clinton because, at bottom, there was nothing of any real substance to have any serious rage against him for) that if I heard it once I heard it ten times that "someone should put a bullet in his head." That, fortunately, is just loose talk, and even more fortunately not the way we do things in America. In any event, if an American jury were to find Bush guilty of first degree murder, it would be up to them to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, one of their options being the imposition of the death penalty.

Although I have never heard before what I am suggesting -- that Bush be prosecuted for murder in an American courtroom -- many have argued that "Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes" (mostly for the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. But for all intents and purposes this cannot be done.

*Even assuming, at this point, that Bush is criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in the Iraq war, under federal law he could only be prosecuted for the deaths of the 4,000 American soldiers killed in the war. No American court would have jurisdiction to prosecute him for the one hundred and some thousand Iraqi deaths since these victims not only were not Americans, but they were killed in a foreign nation, Iraq. Despite their nationality, if they had been killed here in the States, there would of course be jurisdiction.

**Indeed, Bush himself, ironically, would be the last person who would quarrel with the proposition that being guilty of mass murder (even one murder, by his lights) calls for the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment. As governor of Texas, Bush had the highest execution rate of any governor in American history: He was a very strong proponent of the death penalty who even laughingly mocked a condemned young woman who begged him to spare her life ("Please don't kill me," Bush mimicked her in a magazine interview with journalist Tucker Carlson), and even refused to commute the sentence of death down to life imprisonment for a young man who was mentally retarded (although as president he set aside the entire prison sentence of his friend Lewis "Scooter" Libby), and had a broad smile on his face when he announced in his second presidential debate with Al Gore that his state, Texas, was about to execute three convicted murderers.

In Bush's two terms as Texas governor, he signed death warrants for an incredible 152 out of 153 executions against convicted murderers, the majority of whom only killed one single person. The only death sentence Bush commuted was for one of the many murders that mass murderer Henry Lucas had been convicted of. Bush was informed that Lucas had falsely confessed to this particular murder and was innocent, his conviction being improper. So in 152 out of 152 cases, Bush refused to show mercy even once, finding that not one of the 152 convicted killers should receive life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Bush's perfect 100 percent execution rate is highly uncommon even for the most conservative law-and-order governors.

The above is an excerpt from the book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi Published by Vanguard Press; May 2008;$26.95US/$28.95CAN; 978-159315-481-3
Copyright © 2008 Vincent Bugliosi

Vincent Bugliosi received his law degree in 1964. In his career at the L.A. County District Attorney's office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson case, became the basis of his classic, Helter Skelter, the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing history. His forthcoming book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder, is available May 27.

Comments

[glaze]

It finally dawned on me- the very sad correllation between:
1) those 28-or-so percenters who continue to support Bush and
2) the number of people in the general population who continue to stay in abusive PERSONAL relationships, in spite of continual humiliation, physical and mental anguish, and no hope for escape, all due to feelings of low self-worth and self esteem imposed by the abuser.
NOW I GET IT! The sympomatic paralles are obvious, undeniable! I do not have data that suggests 28% of personal relationships are abusive.
Still, one unavoidable conclusion therefore, is that anyone who is a 28 percenter AND in a personal abusive relationship with Bush is therefore basically fucked beyond help.
But what to do to help these other poor lost souls?

[Balzac]

I'd say it's a good idea to buy this book because of the focus on retribution against Bush, the traitor and war-criminal. I disagree with the legal strategy though. It would be better to try him for treason and war-crimes than just murder.

Not so many people are talking about this so I'm thankful to Vincent Bugliosi for keeping his eyes on the prize.

[Yohomegirl]

Send the petition to me, I'll sign it and walk it 'round the block!

[pa104inf]

Maybe, you should carry around a petition calling for the prosecution of former President Clinton for the bombing of an Aspirin factory which killed several individuals knowing that the Aspirin factory was not producing precursors for chemical weapons. Also, why didn't you call for the prosecution of Lyndon Johnson for starting the Vietnam war under false pretenses? Didn't Clinton also bomb IRAQ several times? Maybe we should prosecute him for that as well? What do you think about that?

[Soulsurfer]

Johnson didn't start the Viet Nam war. Clinton carried on with the Northern and Southern Iraq "No Fly" zones started by Bush Sr., as stipulated by the UN after the first Gulf War. How do you know Clinton knew there was no chemical weapons being produced in the factory he ordered bombed? Your facts are not facts. Bush is a murderer, period.

[walkereads]

maybe we should and maybe we should prosecute the senate, minus one senator (and we aren't talking about any Junior senators) who has voted to give the president the money to fund his killing spree when a majority of voters has made it plain that we should stop this senseless killing of Iraqis and Americans.

[swooge]

Eisenhower started the US involvement in Viet Nam when he sent advisers into 'Nam after the French defeat at Diem Bien Phu.

Clinton had no knowledge that they were bombing an aspirin factory (I think there is still some controversy over what the place actually was). He went on the information given.

Bush KNEW that Hussein didn't have WMD's, had no connection to 9/11 and was no threat to the US.

Better to try some knowledge instead of cheese to go with that whine.

[cheforacle]

There is certainly a factual dispute as to whether that plant had joint operations making both legitimate pharamaceutical drugs and chemicals for weapons. There is no dispute that our war effort in Iraq killed thousands of innocent Iraqis who had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

[PWMarvin]

I think Presidents Johnson and Clinton should’ve been prosecuted. President Johnson involved the US heavily in Vietnam based on numerous lies. Millions died in that war.

I'm old enough to remember Vietnam War supporters claiming that the Vietnamese didn’t value their own lives like we did, since the US was so successful in killing so many of them. This was a common belief. Even as a kid I found this disturbing. I knew it couldn't be true. In reality, it was the US that didn't value Vietnamese lives, since Americans were the ones killing so many of them.

Until we hold our leaders responsible for their bad foreign policy, history is guaranteed to repeat.

[CarlyCorday]

Buy it!

OK.

Done.

[BronxGOPer]

What’s missing from this article (I assume because it’s only an excerpt from a larger book) is the actual legal theory of prosecution. Specifically, under what statute would President Bush be charged? I am not aware of any previous prosecution where an alleged lie alone was sufficient to sustain a murder charge. Given that Congress with access to same intelligence available to Bush voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, I think there would be a real issue of intervening and superseding causes. I am curious as to the legal theory, but not quite curious enough to buy the book. Sorry.

“in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up.”

That’s one way to put it. Another is to say that Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice by lying under oath and urging others to lie in a sexual harassment civil suit. As someone who has represented women in such suits I believe it is important for everyone to give truthful testimony. Defendants in such cases have an obligation to answer questions about private and potentially embarrassing matters. While I have heard many people argue that Clinton should not have had to answer those questions, I have never heard anyone argue sexual harassment defendants generally should have the right not to answer.

[trappedinsc]

How about Conspiracy to commit high treason?

[walkereads]

You scare me.

[sophistwatch]

First, I assume you care more about America than your party.

I happen to agree that Clinton abused the office and made a mockery of himself when he uttered the famous line "that depends on what your definition of is - is". Janet Reno should have been made to be more forthcoming to the public about Wayco. The list of abuses is long on both sides. This is I think the point to be made.

I concede that some are willing to overlook sins on the left and to engage in a witch hunt against the right. The opposite is surely true as well.

However, the most important thing is to try to address exactly how to stop the abuses on both sides. In my mind the integrity of our system is more important than any party or person.

[MarkInEugene]

The bottom line in Bugliosi's argument is that the glaring truth screams injustice. To argue that injustice is fair because of legal jurisprudence doesn't make it so.

This country is dangerously divided and one of the reasons for that is a lack of temperance and fairness in our national discourse. If you were an honest person, you would at least acknowledge the clear difference and importance of lying about a dress versus lying about a war.

If you can't even acknowledge the injustice Mr. Bugliosi is referring to, then how can this country unite itself?

[cheforacle]

You are right that a witness in a sexual harrassment case must answer all questions not covered by some other cognizable privilege but I don't think a prosecution for perjury before a grand jury concerning a collateral matter in a civil case has ever been initiated by the DOJ or any US Attorney's Office. I say it is collateral because the Monica Lewinsky relationship was collateral to, not central to the relevant issues in the Paula Jones case. Clinton was treated below the law; i.e., in a manner that no other citiizen would be treated which, in the context of the Paula Jones case, as that did not involve any matter of legitimate public interest, is not fair.

As for your point that perjury is not enough to convict Bush of murder, I agree. It would have to be shown that he intentionally lied for the purpose of getting the armed forces to kill civilians although, if there were an international law equivalent to felony murder rule, there may be criminal liability. As I have only practised state and federal criminal law, I do not know the answer to that question.

[TheLar]

THANK YOU for this article. Why are so many shrugging about this? People DIED. They will never rise again. Yet too many take an attitude like "Oh well, this is what a boob for a president does." NO!!! This is what a criminal does! I can't get the following thought out of my mind:

Osama Bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans needlessly on 9/11. George W. Bush killed over 4,050 Americans needlessly in Iraq. Therefore, Bush is more dangerous to Americans than Bin Laden.

More on the implications of that thought here:
http://www.larrynocella.com/2008/04/bush-responsible-for-more-american.html

[onepartysystem]

Well, I see a big difference between Bush and Bin Laden. One of them is a crazed religious nut job who wouldn't care if a million Americans died and this nation was destroyed just as long as he got what he wanted. The other is some scruffy guy living in a cave somewhere in the middle east.

[Pythia]

Thank you Mr. Bugliosi. My gratitude for having the gravitas, and the bravery to write and speak the obvious, as those in Congress lack the spine and fortitude to do. I used to believe in the hope of justice. No longer, but I still believe in the power of the pen, as Chaucer said, to be mightier than the sword in the judgment of history; these elected men and women who lack the courage to do so, will not escape its ultimate conviction for their apathy.

[TERRYKEITH4]

I always looked at myself as being a strong person, and stay cool under pressure, but right now I'm watching the program A&E In The Classroom. They are interviewing soldiers in Iraq, and also mothers who have lost their child in Iraq. I have a tear in my eye....

[HearNoWeasel]

To those who say "Yes, Bush/Chene­y/Rumsfeld­/Rice" need to be prosecuted, but it won't happen" :

If you continue to act like that's a foregone conclusion, then you're part of the reason why it won't happen.

Who started this "it won't happen" mandra that so many are mindlessly repeating? Why are you letting someone else take your voice away?

It appears that what this administration has done doesn't truly bother most of us - at least not enough to actually make a few phone calls. But I won't believe that of my countrymen. I want to read in history books 30 years from now that Americans had finally had enough and started raising some hell. That IS my fondest wish.

You don't have to know the solution, but do make your opposition heard! Now is when it counts. If Congress hears us loud enough and often enough they'll start working out where to go from here, without bringing the country down around our ears like some seem to fear.

[4peace]

Are you kidding me? Who are we gonna call? Ghost busters? I've made many calls and sent many emails to our so-called "leaders", the result - if anything - a form letter in the mail saying nice hearing from you but F-off. We have a rogue government that is no longer "for and by" the people. Call me part of the problem if you want but evidence shows it just isn't going to happen, no one is going to be held accountable for anything. The crimes this elitist cabal has gotten away with is incredible. Raise some hell = don't tase me bro, IRS audit, set-up for prosecution (can you say Siegelman?), etc.........

Those that make the laws are the biggest offenders, they break the law and then pass laws making what they did legal, retroactively.

Tell me, how do you fight that? Seriously, do you think a few phone calls, or even a million phone calls will change anything?

WE ARE A ONE PARTY SYSTEM THAT REPRESENTS 4% OF THE POPULATION.

[exlrrp]

Absolutely right, 4Peace.

The question is: what can we, as concerned citizens do and the answer appears to be absollutely nothing efffective.

Don't tell me to call or write my Congressman---I have already done so, so often I'm sure he now thinks I'm a crank....and nothing has been done at all. Like 4 peace, says, you just get a form letter saying Thanks a lot now bugger off.

Every election Ive given increasing money to the Democrats, hoping somehow they'll learnm to be an effective opposition party---and each time I get more disappointed.

I gave Pelosi more money in 2006 than I'd ever given to an out of state politician, and with express demands to start impeaching Bush. Well, she cashed the checks, anyway.

You got one thing wrong though, 4peace: we're a TWO party system that represents 4% of the population

[Meteor]

There is abundant evidence on video, TV programs, eye witnesses, expert scientific and engineering analysis etc. etc. that 9/11 was a highly planned as "another Pearl Harbor". Even Bush and Cheney dance to the tune of those who planned and executed it and are keeping it covered up because they control the Main Stream Media, they took us into this Iraq war and they are planning an attack on Iran.

Our government is already broken and dysfunctional, propped up to look like it is running. There are bus loads of these war criminals and traitors, all posing as leaders and respectable people, all stupid, but arrogant, destroyers of our precious Constitution - known in The White House as "a goddamn piece of paper".

Prosecution of George W. Bush for murder would just be a start. Whether or not there will be a start greatly depends on whether this country survives another year and then a start is by no means assured.

[PatA]

Clinton had an affair.
Bush caused our soldiers and innocent people to be killed. We cannot see the coffins that come back from Iraq and Afghanistan.
How many times did we get to see the stained blue dress?
No one will ever do anything to Bush.

[deminmo]

Will the impeachment of Bush and Chaney commence before
he goes to war with Iran, and a million deaths are added, or will
someone in Congress have the balls to initiate it now? Pelosi
and others have said there would be no impeachment. So, where
do we go from here?

[TERRYKEITH4]

This is where we go. When the time comes for Pelosi and her weak assed congress to be re-elected don't vote for her or them. This is what Senator Obama was talking about when he said that sometimes experience is not good. George Bush is nothing but a drunken fool, and we as Americans are looked at by other countries as a reflection of who we choose to lead us. What kind of people are we when we choose somebody like George Bush to lead us into where we are now? It's on us and our own fault while his first run was a fault, because he was appointed by a judge, but the second time around I couldn't believe that Americans actually voted him back in... A drunken stumble bum! A fool! Shame on us!

I've heard that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, but I can't tell. Now, before everything is all said and done the warmongers are going to come up with something to incite fear into the hearts of all of you so-called "free" and "brave" folk. What are you going to do then? Are you going to stand up and be the brave folk that you claim to be? Or are you going to "cut and run" back to the warmongers while you done lost your jobs, your homes, and eating government cheese, because all your grocery money is in your gas tanks?

[4peace]

Impeachment is off the table = I don't want to be blackmailed. I think the rove machine has systematically developed a library of dirt on each and every member of the house and senate, with the exception of a few - must I name them, okay, Kucinich and Paul, remember them, the ones the guvment media wouldn't let play election?

[sharonh]

Just seeing the words in print gets me excited. Justice for the Iraqi people and the American people, I fear, will never be fully realized but at least the dialog is started.

[ThomasDoubting]

When the war began, I was among those individuals, and there were many of us, who did not believe that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 911 . We also knew that there was nothing, that Saddam could do, to avoid the coming war. The weapons inspectors found nothing, and they were searching freely, without interference. Many of us knew early in the Bush presidency, that he was not always telling the truth. I have noticed that he often misled us about seemingly unimportant things too, such as the date, that he gave up golf. The last time that he was seen publicly playing golf, was 2 months after he said that he had stopped playing, and coincided with a torn ligament and sore knee. Apparently he gave up golf because of how it looked, to the people, whose kids were dying, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, and he gave up running because of his injured knee. It was just a coincidence that it happened to be at the same time. Remember when Bush warned us to never listen to wild conspiracy theories about 911. He should have kept his mouth shut, because now 66% of those asked, in a recent poll, say that they believe that it possible that some members of his government, may have been complicit, in the events of 911.

[pa104inf]

First off, President Bush never said that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. What he believed as well as most of the world is that Saddam was involved in the production of WMD's. After all, Saddam used them on the Kurds without a problem. Get your facts straight. As far as Saddam goes, all he had to do was cooperate with the inspectors and all would have been well. Therefore, he could have done something.

[synapse369]

Thank you for the info. Could you please provide the link to the poll you cite where "66% of those asked...say they believe that it is possible, etc".

[PacificGatePost]

Reading these posts, one wonders how is it that Bush was elected for a second term, well after all this was known, and now there is clamoring for impeachment?

What changed since the last election? The price of oil? Value of homes? Value of the dollar?

[heal57]

Bush lost both elections. They were stolen. Diebold machines the 2nd time. We must never let Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld off the hook for war crimes. I only pray we can make it happen, especially when Senator Obama is President. I'd like to feel proud to be an American again.


Independent for Obama '08

[4peace]

Please let me refresh your memory, bush was never elected, let alone re-elected. In 2000 he was installed by poppys pals in the supreme court (another bloated body of blow-hards that need to go away), and then in 2004 he was reinstalled through voter fraud in, among others, the state of Ohio. Can you say Diebold?