• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UFPPC (www.ufppc.org) Digging Deeper LIV: August 18, 2008, 7:00 p.m.
Vincent Bugliosi,
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder 
(New York:Vanguard Press/Perseus Group, May 2008).Acknowledgments.
Praise for RogerCooper for his courage in publishing thisbook. Editor Betsy Reed, secretaryRosemary Newton, wife Gail.
P
ART
I
 
Ch. 1: Opening Up One’s Eyes.
Bush’s war in Iraq is “the most seriouscrime ever committed in Americanhistory” (3; 3-4). “I seem to naturally . . .see what’s in front of me”; four examples(5; 4-13).
Ch. 2: Why George Bush Went toWar.
“
[N]o one was talking about actually going to war with Iraq beforeBush started talking about it 
. . . noneseem to be too confident about why Bushwent to war. . . . Whatever Bush’s reasonwas, it was not a good reason” (15-16).WMD were the main justification for war;that liberation and promoting democracyhave since been advanced as “real”reasons only strengthens the caseagainst Bush (16-21; in a long note,Bugliosi argues 1) that Saddam Husseinwas
not 
an enemy of the U.S., and 2) hewould not have dared attack or facilitatean attack on the U.S. [254-64]). Falsestatements by Bush, Cheney, Rice,Powell, and Rumsfeld (21-25).
P
ART
II
 
Ch. 3: Prologue to the Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.
“[N]othing is as important in life as lifeand death” (30). Vignettes of the liveslost because of Bush’s decision to go towar (30-37). In the war zone they lackedproper equipment (37-40). Bushproposed reducing combat pay to fundtax breaks for wealthy (40-42). U.S.soldiers didn’t die for nothing, they died“for the two men shown in the photoabove, George Bush and Karl Rove, andtheir friend Dick Cheney” (43). They are“human embarrassments, and it’s writtenall over their faces who they are” (44).Many soldiers who died, and theirparents, believed they were defendingtheir country (45-48). Appeal forawareness of the meaning of “lifeless”numbers on a page (48-52). Impression:Bush “hasn’t suffered at all over themonumental suffering, death, and horrorhe has caused,” in fact has often made jokes and light-hearted remarks aboutthem; he hasn’t worked very hard either,and doesn’t really love America;speculation on why (52-53; 52-80).
Ch. 4: The Prosecution of George W.Bush for Murder.
Bugliosi’s motivationis “not political” (81). Liberal columnistsspeak of Bush’s lies, but do not drawappropriate consequences (82-84).Bugliosi has never heard anyone elsepropose that Bush be prosecuted formurder (85-86; the obstacles tointernational prosecution are insuperable[269-71; Bugliosi never mentions theNuremberg trials]; prosecution for torturein the U.S is possible, though [270n.]).“[I]n my opinion there certainly is morethan enough evidence against Bush to justify bringing him to trial and letting anAmerican jury decide whether or not heis guilty of murder, and if so, what theappropriate punishment should be” (86).Prosecution of Bush would rely on “
thevicarious liability rule of conspiracy
,which provides that each member of aconspiracy is criminally responsible for allcrimes committed by his coconspiratorsor innocent agents of the conspirators tofurther the object of the conspiracy” (87,emphasis added; cf. 88 on the “doctrineof innocent agent” [
Gallimore v.Commonwealth of Virginia
(1993)]).“Note that it does not have to be shown
 
that the principal
wanted 
the innocentagent to commit the act, only that he
caused 
him to” (88, emphasis in original).Alternatively, Bush could be convictedunder “the law of ‘aiding and abetting’”as the instigator of the killing of U.S.soldiers (88; 88-89). Prosecution couldonly come after Bush is out of office,“unless Bush’s successor is outrageousenough to pardon him” (90; 89-91).Congress’s resolution is “no legaldefense” because “consent is
not 
adefense to the crime of murder” (92,emphasis in original; the war power is nodefense [272-79]). The elements of thecrime of murder:
actus reus
and
mensrea
(93-95). “[A] very credible argumentcould be made that in a real sense [Bush]did intend to have American soldierskilled in his war” (96; there is no need toprove motive [279-80]). And in manyinstances “the law can find an intent tokill when the defendant never had suchan intent” (98; 96-98). “[A]t an absoluteminimum” implied malice could justify asecond-degree murder charge, because“[m]alice is a state of mind showing aheart [not regardful] of the life and safetyof others” (99). Circumstantial evidenceis adequate to establish that Bush lied insaying that Saddam Hussein’s WMDmade him an imminent threat to the U.S.(100-30; cf. extended discussion of theGulf of Tonkin incident [284-90]). Thedemand that Saddam leave Iraq inresponse to a 2003 report from Blix andElBaradei saying that several months of further investigations could determinewhether Iraq had WMD shows Bush’sintent to go to war (130-35). So doesBush’s attitude to France’s opposition(135-36). There is overwhelmingevidence that Bush lied about Iraq’sconnections to al-Qaeda (137-50). Bushwould argue he attacked in “self-defense,” but the argument is easilyrebutted (150-52). A “characterdefense” would also fail (152-53). Thebest jurisdiction would be Washington,D.C., with the attorney generalprosecuting under 19 U.S.C. §1117(Conspiracy) and §1111 (Murder) (154;discussion of jurisdiction [305-13]).“[A]ny state attorney general in the fiftystates (or any district attorney . . . in anycounty of any state) could bring a murdercharge against Bush for any soldiers fromthat state or county,” provided there isan overt act committed by one or moremembers of the conspiracy in that jurisdiction (155). He could also beprosecuted for “the separate crime of conspiracy to commit murder,” and “thepunishment would be identical in moststates” (156). Cheney and Rice, andprobably Rumsfeld and Rove, as well asLibby, Michael Gerson (speechwriter), butprobably not Powell, should also beprosecuted (157-58). Plea bargainingwould be likely (158-60). Advice onconducting the examining witness Bush(160-66). If “some court” holds Bushcannot be prosecuted, a law should bepassed making taking the country to waron a lie a crime (166-68).
P
ART
III
 
Ch. 5: Bush “Couldn’t Possibly”Have Been Any Worse in Handlingthe War on Terrorism.
Though the waron terrorism is often discussed as if itwere a political strength for Bush, in fact“Bush
could not possibly have been any worse fighting the war against terrorism,from the very beginning of hisadministration up until now
” (173,emphasis in original). Bush neglectedthe danger posed by bin Laden for eightmonths (174-85). Bush escaped blamefor allowing the attacks (185-88). Bush’sinitial response to the 9/11 attacks wasdereliction of duty (188-92). Cheneyprobably gave a shoot-down order on9/11 without authorization (192-95).Bush deserves no credit for going afterbin Laden because he had no choice butto do so (195-205). Bush opposed anindependent commission investigate9/11 and failed to cooperate with it [butBugliosi avoids criticizing the 9/11Commission] (205-12). Bush let bin
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...