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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There were political exigencies at play when Pelosi made the statement that impeachment was off the table. What exigencies? Well, the table was being set for the next presidential election and it was obvious that some Democrats - and I shouldn't need to identify them - would have voted against impeachment much in the same manner that they voted FOR the war: political currency.
Whether Bush/Chene
The reason nobody is after Bush is because it's an election year. His approval rating is already low. The last thing the democrats want to do right now is galvanize republicans by making accusations they are not sure will stick and could also incriminate many others including the democrates.
What you say is the truth, and it is absolutely horrendous. For political expediency they've sat by and watched Bush send this country ever deeper into hell.
What are you going to do about it? Are you going to say: it's too late now, there's nothing left to do? Or are you going to send your Congress people faxes and emails and get on the horn to their office?
Those of us who see the crimes and don't demand action from their representatves are little better than those representatives. Congress has only been able to let this disaster play out because they haven't heard from most of us. It's not too late to change that.
BS, not every year, though it seems like it, is an election year, this guy has been causing nothing but death and destruction for the past 8 years.
i've been saying this since the idea first came up to invade iraq, a notion that flew in the face of int'l law. perhaps the international courts will help us out. after the election is over, all principal parties should be arrested abroad and tried at The Hague. this is the only way we can begin to redeem ourselves as a nation and satisfy the world community's hunger for justice. it's a painful subject for what it says about us, but it needs to be done, it's an operation we need to have for the patient, the very idea of america, to live.
i think there is little talk of this domestically because we still have our kids over there and because it's too explosive a topic to saddle our dem. hopefuls with at the moment.
Even if Bush was innocent of lying and really did read our intelligence wrong, he should still have to answer to sending thousands to their deaths for his error.
The thing that proves in my mind he is guilty of lying is, when he supposedly "misread" our inelegance and so many people died, you would think he would be a little more cautious when dealing with another country. Yet he wants to go into Iran now. He's saying our inelegance is wrong when they tell him Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. This tells me he believes there were no mistakes made in Iraq. Everything is going to his plan.
Wait a minute. Did I miss something? After all that complaining about "going to the next paragraph", didn't he do the same thing? I can't find anywhere in the article where he states his ACTUAL postion. He leaves that conclusion to the reader. How is that any different than all the others he complains about for not taking a stand?
This reminds me of the John Conyers/Karl Rove thread. If you want to indict Rove, DO IT. If you want to impeach Bush, DO IT. Republicans do not take you seriously when you don't back up your tough talk.
However, I don't think Bush will ever be impeached. Hard to believe the "accessories to the crime" are up for it.
No one will follow up on the punishment for Bush...bec
Yes, you did.
It's an excerpt . . . you know, a paragraph or two from Bugliosi's newest book.
Perhaps you should read the book for answers 10's of millions of people have known for years.
George W. Bush is indeed a murderer. As sure as if he pulled ever trigger on every firearm, as sure as if he set every bomb, he is guilty of murder. His lies and his pitiful addiction to greed spawned murder. He is guilty of doing nothing to help us reverse the harm we are doing to our planet, and is in part guilty of the murder for every person who falls victim to the storms coming our way.
Thank you, Mr. Bugliosi, thank you, thank you. I believe like you, that George Bush and Dick Cheney are guilty of crimes against humanity and other atrocities. I never fathomed America's lack of real interest in impeaching him. Bill Clinton had sex.....Ge
Ideally, Bush and Cheney should board a military transport plane in chains and be tried first in Washington D.C. and then to the Hague. There should be no mercy....n
During the Clinton presidency Mr. Clinton did a lot to help give opportunities to people who would not have had them otherwise. This act p'd off the Elites who thought to have their 'permanent majority.' This is why we see such a hypocritical thing like this happening.
HuffPost's Pick
"If" is a big word my mother use to say. So what if the president lied to bring us into a war that killed thousand of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis and he would be found guilty of murder. If your boss told you to go kill somebody and told you that it was right and later he is found guilty of murder what does that make you? And what about the people who never pulled the trigger or dropped the bomb but helped the boss out with his lie. Where do they stand. Bush doesn't have to be prosecuted.
The Germans have a word for it, "Verarschd". Robert McNamara, of Vietnam fame, said quietly years later that it had been a mistake. That applies back then as it does now. Whether we like it or not we all have been, or have let ourselves be "verarschd". You don't have to hang George Bush or sentence him to life imprisonment. That's not going to help any of us face the real criminal when we look in the mirror.
First of all I never voted for Bush. Second I never trusted him or even supported him. I have face ridicule when ever I spoke out about Bush as if I was un American for being against him and his war. And, I believe, I'm not the only one. I assume by your question you feel we can't go after Bush unless we go after the soldiers too.
You are completely WRONG. As a soldier it is your job to follow orders. The only time you would question it legality is if you know it's illeagal. Our soldiers follow orders to hopefully save more lives than they kill.
Bush, on the other hand, knew he was breaking the law. Bush feels he is above the law. To think there is nothing good that will come out of prosecuting him, is completely wrong. The president can't think he is above the law. He has to realize he will need to answer to his actions. If Bush is let off the hook, we are only asking for the next president to do what ever he wants regardless of the law.
The problem with this reasoning is if all are guilty then no one is specifically guilty. Yet we know there are varying degrees of ability to either cause or mitigate a crime, and culpability is proportional to those degrees. Those who did not vote for Bush and who opposed Bush and his policies with what they believed to be all means at their disposal, how are they guilty? Because they live in a system that profits off of imperial crimes (do not call crimes "mistakes"; that is like calling rape sex) and delivers relatively cheap oil to them in return for the blood of many innocents and their apathy? In that sense there is some shared guilt, but that kind of culpability is nothing like that of Bush et al--plus the spineless Dems who put fear or not appearing 'patriotic' or not 'supporting our troops' ahead of their basic Constitutional responsiiblities and powers.
There are degrees of guilt, just like degrees of awareness of a crime, degrees of tacit or explicit complicity in a crime and its cover-up for sure.
No way do I agree with your post. Many Americans were against the war in Iraq from day one. We deplored everything Bush an Cheney did. When I look in the mirror I see a good, decent, person who loves humanity, but I believe in justice. Bush, Cheney and Rumfeld should be tried for war crimes. Most Americans did not go along with their war.
The lies worked--the majority of Bush voters in 2004 believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11. If all you stand for is getting elected, thus maintaining your own power, the Republicans were successful.
In spite of the dismal failure of MSM, there was plenty of information out there exposing the lies; however enough voters chose the path of ignorance and we are all suffering. At least those voters are paying the price at the gas pump; unfortunately so are the rest of us...and that's only money.
The parents of American military personnel who died for Bush's lies deserve justice.
Nancy Pelosi committed a major blunder in taking impeachment off the table.
The irony of VB's call to try Bush for murder is that Bush ran on his record of retributio
Bugliosi is right, but there is little chance that Bush will ever be tried for anything. Most likely, Bugliosi's article will be conveniently ignored by most of the media so that we can concentrate on more important issues like gay marriage in California.
There is not a single HuffPo regular who doesn't agree with the single issue of "murder" as the most glaring and primal charge that George W. Bush should account for. When the full truth unravels over the next dozen or so years all Americans will finally appreciate the extent of this the most brazen and treasonous CONSPIRACY in American history! Conspiracy to commit Treason; Fraud; Genocide; Murder; Grand Theft; and, every single one of the Ten Commandments!
Their Grand Conspiracy certainly foresaw this particular moment in its earliest criminal deliberations. They have anticipated every possible happenstance and believe they are covered by the hundreds of 'friendly' members of the judiciary they have thoughtfully placed on the Bench. Plus, they are convinced of the "Pride" most Americans erroneously feel as regards the "sanctity" of our Presidency. They feel that American's "Pride" will stand in the way of True Justice.
They could be right, which thought nearly makes this Democrat wretch! If ever the Tree of Liberty needed watering, it is NOW!
Brick
Brilliant.
The prosecution of George W. Bush is the right thing to do logically and morally, which is why it will never happen in a million years.
We know that there's been something quite foul over in Denmark for far too long. Certainly a case can be made against someone, but I think it comes down to it being too much trouble for only a middling return if Bush is impeached and prosecuted; simply in this being something unprecedented in U.S. (and world) history and all the attendant hoopla that would result, but also in the massive disruption and turmoil that would tie up the government for who knows how long until the case is decided. We're talking *months* of this and at least twice as bad as the Clinton impeachment because the stakes here are far greater.
The Democrats are reluctant to go for it for these reasons and for one more: they might not be able to make the case. This would be even worse than bringing it in the first place. In fact, I'll go so far as to say they would almost certainly lose the case, and I'm guessing they feel the same way. Bush may not be the brightest bulb, but Rove and company certainly are, no matter what the opposition may say. They probably have 10 degrees of separation between Bush and the dirty deeds, despite what happened with Scooter Libby. The only way Bush sees the inside of a prison cell is if he steps inside one during a state visit.
"Middling return"? Are you suggesting that our laws (remember them?) should only be applied when there's a decent return on the effort? This is exactly the insane thinking that Congress is following.
Crimes were committed. They get punished. That's why we have a functioning society. If we were looking for a return on our money, why bother paying even a penny for thousands of prosecutors and judges around the country? Why are you presumably OK with prosecuting hundreds of thousands of lesser crimes - like simpe murder or rape or robbery - if you don't want to invest in prosecuting the ultimate crimes? Aren't all those a waste of time and effort, too?
Why just Bush?
ALL the conspirators - Cheney, Rummy, Condi and on down the ladder - should be charged and convicted and imprisoned.
Ship them all over to The Hague and try them for War Crimes .
This I have believed all along. Good for you.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
