There is probable cause now to try George W. Bush for capital crimes in connection with the US program of torture at Abu Ghraib as well as the war of aggression against Iraq. There is evidence that George W. Bush ordered this program which most certainly resulted in numerous violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles. (a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.Certainly, the Bush regime has sought to make 'legal' Bush's crimes ex post facto, after they had already been committed. The argument that Bush, as 'President', may pardon himself or grant himself retroactive immunity from prosecution is just silly. If that were the case, every President might have tried to get away with it by simply making it all up as one goes along --the very anti-thesis of the 'rule of law', indeed, 'Due Process of Law', guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. If mere Presidents were allowed this kind of power, they might as well rule by decree, as Bush has presumed to do. As I have pointed out not even European monarchs were permitted to get away with that. King Charles I was beheaded for less. [See: Why Bush Made Plans to Invade the Netherlands; Bush's Unitary Executive Ends the Rule of Law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Separation of Powers]. George W. Bush has never denied that 'torture' was conducted upon his order. Abu Ghraib was not only about 'waterboarding' it was about a panoply of torture procedures --all of them perpetrated upon Bush's order. Bush has never denied that he ordered any procedure that we associate with Abu Ghraib. He has merely tried to justify it, as he tried to do in the following interview with Matt Lauer of the Today Show.-US Codes, TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441; How Current is This?
Bush: Bully and War Criminal
I have bad news for Bush. Even if his regime were 'legitimate' his various decrees bypassing both Congress and the Constitution are unlawful. Bush is not above the law, though he may think he is. Likewise, King Charles I of England may have thought himself above the authority of Parliament but found out otherwise but much too late to keep his head attached to his body.
Bush has clear legal responsibility for his torture policies, the war deaths in Iraq and the admitted murders he confessed to in the 2003 SOTU address.Photos from Abu Ghraib document or are, at least, evidence that these procedures resulted in death on occasion. A complete investigation should be mandatory. Bush's efforts to exempt himself from the law are themselves unconstitutional and may not provide the cover he needs to escape the consequences of a real and thorough investigation into the program of abuses at Abu Ghraib. Federal laws make Bush's orders to torture capital offenses. Let's cut to the chase; George W. Bush has committed capital crimes. I say let's get on with the trial.All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. (Applause.And let's not forget his plans to murder civilian journalists in Qatar, testified to by two UK officials who were prepared to put their careers (and freedom) on the line to make sure the story got out. Bush discussed murdering these al jazeera journalists with Tony Blair.---Bush Boasting of Having Ordered Mass Murder, State of the Union Address, 2003
If Bush had any confidence in his actions he would lay his cards on the table. He doesn't, so he won't. The Office of Legal Counsel is refusing to hand over legal advice provided to Bush that supposedly justifies his executive orders. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) was able to review three of these documents and was shocked by what he read:
An Executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new Executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous Executive order. Rather than violate an Executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.
The President, exercising his constitutional authority under article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President's authority under article II.
As [the] Whitehouse further notes...."In other words, the president can decide whether his own interpretation of the law is lawful."
And that's about the whole ball game, folks. Once the President becomes a fully fledged "unitary executive" the law disappears up the kazoo. It simply loses all meaning.
But Bush is aware that his actions would not stand the pesky scrutiny and the ordinary morals of ordinary citizens. And so he hides his handiwork. It's the same story on the just completed Pentagon report confirming that Saddam Hussein never had any connections to al Qaeda. It won't be published on the web since that would embarrass Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and identify them as liars and war criminals. Instead, if people want a copy they can write to the Pentagon and the military will send them a CD of their findings in a plain sealed envelope. Isn't that nice? Clearly no frog-marching will be happening for Georgie Boy. And why should it? In his own words:Damien, 70 Reasons to doubt
As an expert witness in the defense of an Abu Ghraib guard who was court-martialed, psychologist Philip Zimbardo had access to many of the images of abuse that were taken by the guards themselves. For a presentation at the TED conference in Monterey, California, Zimbardo assembled some of these pictures into a short video. Wired.com obtained the video from Zimbardo's talk, and is publishing some of the stills from that video here. Many of the images are explicit and gruesome, depicting nudity, degradation,Bush's attempts to justify torture citing his obligation to protect the American people. His case is not convincing. When all the stats are analyzed, it will be proven that by giving presumed enemies a cause celebre to wage war upon the US and its people, terrorism will have increased and the American people put in greater danger. Certainly, official FBI stats, compiled and published by the Brookings Institution, proved conclusively that while Ronald Reagan waged his equally absurd 'war on terrorism', terrorism, in fact, got much, much worse. Americans are endangered by these reckless right wing, GOP policies. Federal Judges may convene Grand Juries on their own motions. I urge courageous and honorable Federal Judges to do precisely that. I would encourage such a judge to charge this panel with a full investigation of the capital crimes for which there is probable cause now to bring charges against Bush, to try him for his crimes. Bush should be subpoenaed to appear before such a panel and prosecuted for obstruction of justice if he refuses. Bush's decrees designed to place himself above the law are null and void, themselves unlawful. Bush should be compelled under oath to tell the truth or risk an indictment for perjury. Should he perjure himself, he thus risks prosecution for capital crimes, and, likewise, should he decide to confess his complicity in war crimes for which the penalty is death. Bush must stand trial now for having committed capital crimes.Additional resources
simulated sex acts and guards posing with decaying corpses. Viewer discretion is advised.
- Robert Fisk On Dictator Bush and the Swingin' Corpse of the Dictator We Created
- Should Blue States Refuse to Pay for Red State War Crimes, Follies, Profligacy
- States want to secede from the United States
- "Vermont Passed A Resolution To Secede From The US"
- States Most Likely to Secede
Subscribe
Bush, Capital Crimes, war Crimes, TortureSpread the word
17 comments:
You're right, Len. Bush has clear legal responsibility for his torture policies, the war deaths in Iraq and the admitted murders he confessed to in the 2003 SOTU address. And let's not forget his plans to murder civilian journalists in Qatar, testified to by two UK officials who were prepared to put their careers (and freedom) on the line to make sure the story got out. Bush discussed murdering these al jazeera journalists with Tony Blair.
If Bush had any confidence in his actions he would lay his cards on the table. He doesn't, so he won't. The Office of Legal Counsel is refusing to hand over legal advice provided to Bush that supposedly justifies his executive orders. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) was able to review three of these documents and was shocked by what he read:
An Executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new Executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous Executive order. Rather than violate an Executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.
The President, exercising his constitutional authority under article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President's authority under article II.
As Whitehouse further notes...."In other words, the president can decide whether his own interpretation of the law is lawful."
And that's about the whole ball game, folks. Once the President becomes a fully fledged "unitary executive" the law disappears up the kazoo. It simply loses all meaning.
But Bush is aware that his actions would not stand the pesky scrutiny and the ordinary morals of ordinary citizens. And so he hides his handiwork. It's the same story on the just completed Pentagon report confirming that Saddam Hussein never had any connections to al Qaeda. It won't be published on the web since that would embarrass Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and identify them as liars and war criminals. Instead, if people want a copy they can write to the Pentagon and the military will send them a CD of their findings in a plain sealed envelope. Isn't that nice? Clearly no frog-marching will be happening for Georgie Boy. And why should it? In his own words:
"If I didn't believe that God spoke through me, I couldn't do my job."
Just your stock standard, nothing special, straight out the box, everyday asshole.
Brilliant post, damien. I quoted you...I hope that's OK.
Always a pleasure, Len. Cheers.
While you are both spot on I see a few practical problems that would preclude bush standing trial for anything.
1) The Justice Dept. is corrupted beyond repair and really only prosecutes Democrats at this point. In fact, the Dept. even prosecutes innocent Dems like Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and targets others waiting for them to commit a crime (see Eliot Spitzer). Heck, Mukasey will not even enforce Congressional subpoenas.
2) The federal judiciary is so chalk full of Federalist Society types that there is little hope of getting your grand jury.
3) Not that it would matter because anything being done through the courts would eventually make its way to the 5 nut job conservatives on the Supreme Court.
4) Bush simply wouldn't listen to any court should it rule against him. Since the judiciary has no executive or police authority who would make bush stand trial?
5) Perhaps the people would take to the streets (laugh) forcing Bush to stand trial. Then the Democratic Congress would step in and pass a law letting him off the hook at the behest of their corporate constituency.
It's good to be the king!
HPM said...
The Justice Dept. is corrupted beyond repair and really only prosecutes Democrats at this point. ...
And everything else you said is true as well. I've been preaching principles while Americans have been brainwashed to believe that punditry is politics. That's how we got into this mess.
Americans themselves have much to answer for. The rigged election that gave Bush a White House he didn't deserve, should never have been close enough to steal.
I would wager that not one in one hundred Americans has ever bothered to read the Constitution. Fewer still have heard of King Charles. Even fewer have a clue what it was all about. Cromwell is probably an imported beer. And what does this all have to do with 'muricka' anyway?
The practical difficulties involved in 'indicting' Bush for the egregious crimes he's already committed are almost insurmountable. If there were any courageous Federal Judges, one might have already convened a grand jury.
From a practical standpoint, 'revolution' is difficult because Bush has the title of "Commander-in-chief". Would US troops fire upon their neighbors? Would the armed forces attack its own people?
Well --they always have done and will again. Bush would not hesitate to send Blackwater et al into US cities, round up dissidents and intern them in camps.
A final observation: the Democrats are incredibly naive to believe that Bushco --having worked so assiduously to assemble the apparatus of an absolute dictatorship --will simply walk away from it all should John McCain 'lose' the election.
I wish I could be more optimistic. But there is no good end to this until all who presume to be 'dictator' are simply marched onto a scaffold and administered justice.
The poor folk of Paris --who had nothing to lose --would wage a revolution. Tragically, Americans haven't the stomach for it. And millions of innocent folk will die when the dollar utterly collapses and FEMA starts rounding up folk for the camps.
A 'conventional' revolution is doomed before it begins. It was difficult enough --even at the height of Viet Nam dissent --to get people off their padded sofas and into the streets. I remember well trying to organize some demonstrations to protest Nixon's bombing of Cambodia. I had envisioned a march of thousands into downtown. At last, because so many just couldn't be bothered to give up football, sofas, and beer, 'we' settled for a benign gathering in a community meeting hall where we were 'harangued' by overly polite speeches. No --we did not sing Koombayah! We heard a violin concerto by Tchaikovsky. I kept thinking: have we really sown the seeds of revolution here?
A more practical approach may be shaping up in Vermont. Secession is in the air. An April, 2007 article in the Washington Post said: "The winds of secession are blowing in the Green Mountain State: Vermont was once an independent republic, and it can be one again."
The issue that might, at last, compel a change is the following question: WHY SHOULD BLUE STATES PAY FOR RED STATE WARS AND EMPIRE?
WHY SHOULD THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM OF BLUE STATES SUFFER BECAUSE RED STATE IDIOTS INSIST UPON BELIEVING THAT THE UNIVERSE IS ONLY THIRTY THOUSAND YEARS OLD?
If Vermont can secede, then every blue state should simply pull out! The US military cannot even occupy Iraq. Can it 'occupy' a disparate geographic area with a population approaching twice that of the remaining 'reds'? Certainly, various 'cartograms' are graphic proof that the political clout of so-called 'red states' is disproportionate. Blue states were cheated of political clout in Washington long before Bush v Gore rubber stamped it. If such a secession were effected, DC would find itself isolated, surrounded by hostile territory, trying to 'rule over' Red states concentrated in the middle of the continent. D.C. could be laid siege to. Check point Charlies could ring the Beltway, and flights in and out might be shut down completely.
Len, I always go back and forth on the amount Americans are to be blamed. As you say, most are brainwashed. Further, when it comes to our appalling lack of education this is merely the outcome of intentional elitist policies.
Also, so many Americans are indoctrinated with religious dogma from the moment of birth that it seems unfair to pass blame on to them for their choices.
Then there is Fox "News", conservative talk radio and the many other mainstream media propaganda outlets that can't help but influence all of us.
Finally, as you state, the elections of 2000 and 2004 were both stolen which would seem to insulate Americans from true responsibility for the actions of our leaders. Granted, we should have taken to the streets when the elections were being stolen.
Yet, it would be unfair to give us a complete pass as well. Certainly we share some culpability. Which is why it is difficult to comprehend why anyone would be against impeachment. At least that way we could selfishly wash our hands of all the horror we have brought upon people abroad and at home.
In any case, while I am generally as pessimistic as they come, I do see a little light ahead in the failing economy. Bear Stearns will ultimately go under as will other big banks. They've all been covering up ginormous losses for some time. We are also on the verge of seeing the next financial crisis: credit card debt. Throw in the next round of shock and awe in Iran and the $200 a barrel oil likely to follow and we could be on the brink of a Great Depression.
Sadly, that might be the only way to inspire people off the couches to finally take action against these criminals. Of course, then we must deal with Black Water.
HPM said...
Throw in the next round of shock and awe in Iran and the $200 a barrel oil likely to follow and we could be on the brink of a Great Depression.
That 'great depression' looms large right about now. Frankly, I am surprised the dollar is as strong as it is, supported, as it was, by two fundamentals: 1) China had an interest in maintaining a strong dollar as it received those 'bucks' for the cheap crap it sold to Wal-Mart; 2) Oil was traded in bucks and for as long as it was, those nations wishing to buy oil had first to buy 'bucks' in order to do so. This demand for 'bucks' kept the 'price' of bucks up. That's not the case anymore.
There is a case to be made that one of the motives for invading Iraq and stealing the oil was itself motivated by a fundamentally weak dollar. Bush, therefore, had to lie about WMD because he dared not tell the "'murikan" people the real reasons for war: 1) the theft of every Iraqi oil field; 2) the operation of permanent bases in Iraq. Some folk, conditioned by Fox and fundamentalist Christians still persist in equating Islam with terror and Bin Laden with 911. I see very little difference (if any) between Hitler's war on Jews from the Bush/McCain jihad on Islam.
Great article, Len - I actually had to Google it to find your original after seeing it over on Marc Parent's blog (the King of copyright violations) at:
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-bush-should-stand-trial-for-capital.html
You might have given him permission but 99% of the time he just copies & pastes other people's work. Thought you'd want to be aware.
Thanks for the great piece and here's hoping for some justice.
Actually I just realized I shouldn't have given him the courtesy of a link - feel free to delete it, but I wanted you to know. Keep up the good work.
Len, you say -- Some folk, conditioned by Fox and fundamentalist Christians still persist in equating Islam with terror and Bin Laden with 911. I see very little difference (if any) between Hitler's war on Jews from the Bush/McCain jihad on Islam.
This has been cropping up in the Murdoch letters columns here in Oz where a great deal of effort has been put into selling the idea that Islam = fanatics committed to destroying Israel (1 2 3). I wrote there:
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is Israel’s key lobbyist organization in the US and exerts enormous influence on US policy makers. John Hagee is the founder of America’s leading Christian Zionist body, Christians United for Israel, a fund raising group that lobbys politicians on behalf of Israel. He holds prayer breakfasts with Pres.Bush and believes that a major war in the Middle East is required for the return of Christ. Hagee calls for the nuclear bombing of Iran ("Diplomacy would only make God angry"), expresses extremist anti-Palestinian views and anti-Muslim prejudice ("their scripture requires them to kill all Christians and Jews") and supports Israeli conquest in the region. All of this on scriptural grounds. Hagee also blames the Jews for their persecution through history because of their “disobedience to God” ("Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.") So how would AIPAC deal with a religious demagogue, a man who would bomb innocent people in Iran based on nothing more than scriptural gibberish, a man who blames Jews for all their sufferings? Simple, in March 2007 they made him a keynote speaker at an AIPAC conference and afterwards gave him a standing ovation.
What can one say? Hagee believes people in the Middle East (notably Iran) should be murdered solely because of some fucking crap he has read in the scriptures. In any sane society this lunatic moron would be thrown in jail for incitement to murder. And the idea that he should get a standing ovation from Israel's premier US lobbying group is just beyond belief. The whole lot are dangerous.
I am also very concerned about a new development: official US government policy is that anyone criticizing Israel is engaging in anti-Semitic behavior.
The State Department has just submitted to Congress a report called "Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism":
"The distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that -- whether intentionally or unintentionally -- has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel's perceived faults to its Jewish character."
This could be the neocons covering their bases as part of their preparations for an attack upon Iran. With this policy it can't be too far away before they can lock up those who might criticize Israel for any wars undertaken on their behalf. It's a racist, fascist policy.
You have so many good frickin' articles here, it's silly, I tellz ya! You are in some type of "zone"...
Keep up the good work, Cowboy!
Damien, I think you'd be interested in this this post of mine of mine from Wednesday about my encounter (with audio) with the Pastor John Hagee.
Len, I agree with you but I would similarly question the culpability of the German people up to a certain point. They were subject to much of the same crap in a far more difficult time. And the truly horrific stuff did not come til much later. Granted their were plenty of signs of problems then just like we have here today.
damien said...
Hagee believes people in the Middle East (notably Iran) should be murdered solely because of some fucking crap he has read in the scriptures. In any sane society this lunatic moron would be thrown in jail for incitement to murder. And the idea that he should get a standing ovation from Israel's premier US lobbying group is just beyond belief. The whole lot are dangerous.
The term 'incitement to murder' also reminds one that not too long ago, the evangelical nut case, Pat Robertson, was either urging the murder of Cesar Chavez or praying that God do it personally. My own agnosticism was re-inforced by the fact that God let Robertson off the hook. Temporarily!
You reference to the State Department report --"Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism". So --anyone daring to criticism Israeli policy in any way is now officially anti-semitic. Pro-Israeli positions are now state sanctioned dogma but, further, facts or opinions to the contrary are made 'illegal'. Oh well...Americans had no use for Free Speech anyway. All it did was to allow obnoxious people to criticize the government.
Big Dan said...
Keep up the good work, Cowboy!
You can count on that, Dan. Welcome to the 'Cowboy' and keep up the good work yourself. You wrote of the German people in the WWII era:
. And the truly horrific stuff did not come til much later. Granted their were plenty of signs of problems then just like we have here today.
That's very true. I've worn out several paperback copies of Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Many Hitler admirers were simply duped; others knew it was all bullshit but went along. Still others shared Hitler's contempt for "Jews". It's hard to say just how sincerely Hitler himself believed his own propaganda with regard to the "Jewish Question". Certainly, a practiced politician (as Hitler became over time), a gifted orator would exploit anti-semitism, would scapegoat "Jews" whether he really believed his own bullshit or not.
In Bush's case, Islam is a convenient target. It seems 'exotic', different to corn fed 'Merikans'. It is, of course, NOT 'Christianity" and, for Bush's fundamentalist base that makes Islam the "Anti-Christ". It's a recipe for holocaust.
Other Americans should be wary for their own safety's sake. If the radical "Christian" base should begin an program intended to eradicate the world of Islam because it is not Christian, then it is a short, quantum leap to the eradication of every other group --American atheists, liberals, 'secular humanists', Buddhists, and, yes, Jews!
Bush and Hitler have this much in common: both are Nazis.
thank you for posting this.
You can also find a list of war crimes charges brought up by the people here http://worldagainstwar.org click on news and you will find the charges
Thanks for that link. I will add it to the 'resources' section on the menu bar. And keep up the good work. The principle is old: if 'rulers' are above the law, then there is no law. If there is to be law, then rulers must be held to it.
Too Bad Vincent Bugliosi's book,"the Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" didn't get more traction. As usual he makes a solid case.
Your blog is always informative, and I appreciate the work you do--please keep it up!
Frank McElroy said...
Too Bad Vincent Bugliosi's book,"the Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" didn't get more traction.
thanks Frank. I have supported Bugliosi's efforts to re-open the JFK case but, to be perfectly honest, Bugliosi is dead wrong about the Zapruder film. He believes the fatal shot came from the TSBD and insists that JFKs head goes forward --not backward. I have examined every frame of Zapruder in high rez blown up. I could, conceivably stablize to eliminate the EFX of cam movement. I am confident that when I do this, it will be obvious and irrefutable that upon being struck from the front (the grassy knoll) JFKs head explodes and is forced backward by the momentum of the bullet striking his skull.
When I have finished this project, I will convert the results to a 'slo-mo' WMV file and embed it on this blog.
Post a Comment