Bush Behind Bars?
by Dan Spielberg
by Dan Spielberg
DIGG THIS
In his new
book, The
Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (Vanguard Press,
2008), Vincent Bugliosi, the man who successfully prosecuted Charles
Manson for murder, argues convincingly that President George W.
Bush's conduct in taking the U.S. military to war against Iraq under
false pretenses in March of 2003 qualifies him to be prosecuted
for murder in any state in the nation. The victims in the case would
be all the soldiers from that state that were killed in the war
against Iraq. He lays out his case in a devastatingly logical and
methodical manner, weaving together all the relevant facts to paint
the definitive portrait of just how reckless and criminal was the
behavior of President Bush in his push for war against Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. Famous for his true crime books, such as the book about Charles
Manson that launched his literary career, Helter Skelter,
Bugliosi shows us that he is still in fine form.
The legal definition
of murder, as Bugliosi tells us, is "the unlawful killing of a human
being with malice aforethought." Under the law, for there to be
a true crime committed the two elements of a prohibited act (actus
reus) and criminal intent (mens rea) must coexist in time. According
to Bugliosi's legal argument, Bush's act in this case would be his
sending U.S. troops to Iraq, resulting in the death of some 4,000
of them. The criminal intent that would need to be shown, malice
aforethought, could be proven by demonstrating that Bush took them
to war with "reckless and wanton disregard for the consequences
and indifference to human life." The only legal defense that could
be mounted against charges like this would be that Bush acted in
defense of the nation. In order to prove that Bush did not act in
defense of the nation in starting the war, knowing all too well
that Saddam Hussein was no threat to this country, and had no role
in the attacks of 9/11, Bugliosi takes us on a painful walk down
memory lane.
He points out
that one of the first references to Iraq made by the Bush administration
after 9/11 was made on October 15, 2001, by then Secretary of State
Colin Powell when he told the press "Iraq is Iraq, a wasted society
for 10 years. They're sad. They're contained..." If that were the
case, how were they supposed to be a threat to the world's strongest
military power?
Bugliosi calls
our attention to the fact that after Bush had started talking about
the possibility of war with Iraq he said that his decision will
be based on the "latest intelligence." What he never said, of course,
is that on October 1, 2002, the classified 2002 National Intelligence
Estimate issued by the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies
said that Saddam Hussein was NOT an imminent threat to the U.S.
Not long after that, on the afternoon of October 7, 2002, then CIA
director George Tenet delivered a letter to Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida),
Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, saying
"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting
terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical or biological
weapons) against the United States." That evening Bush delivers
a speech to the nation at the Museum Center in Cincinnati, Ohio
in which he called Saddam Hussein a "great danger to our nation."
Then
there is the infamous reference to Saddam Hussein's supposed quest
for uranium in Africa in the President's 2003 State of the Union
speech, which was based on documents which were believed to be forgeries
by U. S. intelligence agencies. In October of 2002 George Tenet
told Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley that the president
"should not be a fact witness on this issue" and the reporting on
it was "weak."
However, for
many, the conclusive evidence that Bush knew Saddam Hussein was
no threat to this country, therefore an attack on Iraq was unjustified,
will be the memo which has come to be known simply as the "Downing
Street Memo." This was written by Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy
aide to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, on July 23, 2002, about
high-level meetings he had with Bush Administration officials. This
memo contained the statement that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam,
through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism
and WMD. But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around
the policy."
In addition
to providing us with the legal rationale and possible jurisdiction
for such a prosecution of the President, Bugliosi also provides
examples of how monstrously callous Bush has been since the war
began in March of 2003. He provides several pages of photographs
of scenes of carnage from Iraq juxtaposed with pictures of a grinning,
clowning President Bush, having the time of his life. He also provides
several quotes from President Bush made during a variety of stages
in the war showing that the President was more concerned about going
running, fishing or to a ball game than about the thousands killed
in the war that he started. As Bush said in a press conference on
December 4, 2007 he's been feeling "pretty good about life."
In the Acknowledgments
section of the book Bugliosi provides a valuable insight into the
world of book publishing when he claims that many people at the
largest publishing houses in the country told him that although
they agreed with the conclusions in the book, and thought that the
book would make money, they wanted to have nothing to do with it
out of fear. It was, they said, "too hot to handle." In fact
two liberal law professors of his acquaintance were scared to even
look at the book! Bugliosi claims that this is all due to the climate
of fear created by the current right wing in America, which brands
anyone who believes George Bush's actions to be criminal as a "pro-terrorist,"
"anti-American" sufferer of "Bush Derangement Syndrome." One
is hard-pressed to disagree with him.
In a political
environment where impeachment of President Bush is "off the table,"
those who wish to bring the man to justice may have to look to the
courts, but the question is, of course, who would step up and prosecute
him? There are not too many prosecutors today who posses Vincent
Bugliosi's passion for justice rather than a passion for high conviction
rates and career advancement. Even if no charges are ever actually
filed against Bush, at least The Prosecution of George W. Bush
for Murder stands as an historical record of one more American
President's mendacity on the issues of war and peace.
June
23, 2008
Dan
Spielberg [send him mail]
works in the real estate industry in Northern California.
Copyright
© 2008 LewRockwell.com
|