The Existentialist Cowboy: 2008-07-13

Friday, July 18, 2008

How 'Stealth Ideology' Helped Bush Shred the Constitution

In his short reign of terror, Bush accomplished what no terrorist could ever have accomplished by any means including those crimes called '911'. Bush will have left our Constitution in an ash heap. His tragic legacy can be summed up in three clauses: he destroyed the separation of powers and ruled by decree; he denied every citizen every right that is associated with being an 'American; he waged war upon a deliberate and treasonous fraud and is, thus, criminally responsible for the deaths of some 1.5 million innocent people! Bush infamously stated: 'The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!" In his wake, it is not even that! It is ashes up in smoke, a fading memory.

Bush's rise to power was made possible by the strong support given him by America's religious right or more accurately, the 'religious wrong'. Of the many crimes that may be attributed to Bush alone, let us consider the endemic dishonesty that may be found among his early supporters --the proponents of a focus-group ideology called 'Intelligent Design'.

The Conservative Movement, as its progenitors like to call it, is now mounting a full-throttled attack on Darwinism even as it has thoroughly embraced Darwin’s bastard child, social Darwinism. On the face of it, these positions may appear inconsistent. What unites them is a profound disdain for science, logic, and fact.
...
The modern Conservative Movement has embraced social Darwinism with no less fervor than it has condemned Darwinism. Social Darwinism gives a moral justification for rejecting social insurance and supporting tax cuts for the rich. "In America," says Robert Bork, "‘the rich’ are overwhelmingly people – entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, etc. – who have gained their higher incomes through intelligence, imagination, and hard work."
...
The only consistency between the right’s attack on Darwinism and embrace of social Darwinism is the utter fatuousness of both. Darwinism is correct. Scientists who are legitimized by peer review and published research are unanimous in their view that evolution is a fact, not a theory. Social Darwinism, meanwhile, is hogwash.
--Robert B. Reich, Of Darwinism and Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism does not follow from "Darwinism" and, worse, it attributes to Darwin positions he never took. Interestingly, the term "survival of the fittest" was never used by Darwin. It has been variously attributed, but Hofstadter seems to attribute that phrase to rail road men:

Railroad executive Chauncy Depew asserted that the guests of the great dinners and public banquets of New York City represented the survival of the fittest of all who came in search of fortune. They were the ones with superior abilities. Likewise railroad magnate James J. Hill defended the railroad companies by saying their fortunes were determined according to the law of survival of the fittest.
—Hofstadter, Richard; 1959; Social Darwinism in American Thought, Braziller; New York.

Hofstadter identified Social Darwinsism not in terms of any school that used the term to describe it ... in tterms of the usage of key prases such as "natural selection', "struggle for existence", and "survival of the fittest". After Hofstadter the term "Social Darwinism" was used not only as a general description for abuses of biology by the Nazis and other, but also as a means of sustaining the established separation between the societ science and biology. Despite the decisive defeat of fascism in 1945, the use of the term rose inexorably and exponentially for the remainder of the twentieth century. It acquired mythological attributes, referring to a pre-1914 era when its use was assumed to be prevalent. At least as far as the Anglophone academic journals are concerned this assumption is false.
--Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Social Darwinism in Anglophone Academic Journals: a Contribution to the History of the Term, p430

Elsewhere, the term is attributed to Herbert Spencer who clearly inspired a generation of radicalized, latter-day robber barons and, bluntly, few of them evince the "...quality of mercy" so immortalized with but a few words by Shakespeare:

[Herbert] Spencer said that diseases "are among the penalties Nature has attached to ignorance and imbecility, and should not, therefore, be tampered with." He even faulted private organizations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children because they encouraged legislation.
—Social Darwinism and American Laissez-faire Capitalism

An equally fallacious corollary to "Social Darwinism" is often phrased this way: the rich are rich because they are better, work harder and are more intelligent. George W. Bush put it more crudely: “The poor are poor because they are lazy!” In the same vein, the conservative economist Joseph A. Schumpeter likened recessions to a "douche" leaving us to wonder just who is "douched" and how? More importantly: who gets to make those life and death decisions? It is difficult not to conclude that New Orleans after Katrina is but the disastrous consequence of this kind of "blame the victim" thinking.

It is not surprising, then, that Spencer's influence continues, not in the field of biology, but in economics, specifically those theories most often associated with the right wing: the American apologists, William Graham Sumner and Simon Nelson Patten.

No doubt, Spencer’s ideas received a major boost after Darwin's theories were published, but unfortunately the issues have been muddled ever since, The application of "adaptation" and "survival of the fittest" to social thought is known as "Social Darwinism". Social Darwinists have fallaciously confused Darwin's description of an observed phenomenon with an ethical commandant.

Of late, critics of Darwin have taken a new tact, a 'stealth ideology' that it is hoped will pass for science among those who think science is nothing more than ideology expressed with big words. The stealth ideology is called 'intelligent design'. Intelligent design was thus packaged. It is stealth ideology designed (not so intelligently) to pass itself off as science. But it was found out and exposed.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
—Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

An issues clarification is in order. The case was not about whether one has a right to believe, indeed, teach "intelligent design". It was about whether or not the state has a right to teach religious dogma in state and locally supported schools.

It was not so long ago, that opponents of evolution had, in fact, passed laws that prohibited the teaching of real science in the public classrooms. That attempt was made in Tennessee where a law was passed on March 13, 1925 which forbade the teaching, in any state-funded educational establishment in Tennessee, of "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." The case has been called a 'a watershed' in the history of the creationist-evolutionist argument.

The issue was forced. Scopes broke the law intentionally so that it might be challenged in court. The trial attracted one time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, famous for his 'Cross of Gold' speech on behalf of an agrarian population that had favored the free coinage of silver and, for the defense, the champion of liberal and labor causes --Clarence Darrow. At a time when many trials were called 'the Trial of the Century', this 'Scopes Monkey Trial' might well have been. --H. L. Mencken, "THE MONKEY TRIAL": A Reporter's Account

Edward R. Murrow: Darrow, Darwin and Dayton, a video by Len Hart

Future discoveries will modify our view of Darwin, but that does not discount it. Our view of Einstein is already modified but he is, in no way, discounted. Moreover, no one has ever sued because Einstein is at odds with a particular dogma. It is certain, however, that no future discovery will confirm "intelligent design" —a logical fallacy on its face and quite beyond any confirmation of any kind!

'Intelligent design' is religious dogma but it's modern proponents have not the integrity of William Jennings Bryan who simply admitted his religious bias upfront. I disagree with Bryan. But he at least had the integrity to admit and defend his bias. Modern proponents of ID, by contrast, have no such intellectual honesty. Bryan did not pretend that his ideas were 'science' or 'scientific'. He did not try to re-package or spin his religious dogma. He didn't try to wrap it up in a fancy package or worse, a cloak, and try to sell it for something that it was not. Proponents of ID are liars and shysters, modern snake oil salesmen, practitioners of a 'stealth ideology'!

While Judge Jones struck deep into the heart of the conspiracy, Mill's objections may still be applied to so-called "faith based initiatives" and other voucher programs. They amount to nothing more nor less than the state finance of parochial schools. With regard to "faith based" initiatives, any federal expenditure in support of religious schools or religious, "faith-based" programs is a prima facie violation of the First Amendment which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Having lost that argument, the religious right now tries to re-frame the debate. It is more recently insinuated that "God" should not be kept out of the affairs of state. But —whose God should be consulted? The fact that Muslims, Christians, and Jews, presumably, worship the same "God" hasn't kept the three "religions" from warring with one another over a period of some 2,000 years. And what of Satanists? Is their 'God' --Satan --to be given equal status? What of those who worship Moloch? Should either Moloch or Satan share equal influence in the conduct of our public schools?

The founders of this nation were absolutely correct. Thomas Jefferson was properly blunt when he espoused a "wall of separation" between church and state. The US Supreme Court and Thomas Jefferson have been very clear on these points:

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'.
--The U.S. Supreme Court, 1947

The United States was NOT founded upon the principles of the Christian religion --though religious toleration is guaranteed in the First Amendment.

In the America envisioned by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison (who authored our "Bill of Rights), all Religions should be tolerated but none should receive preferential treatment by the established governments —local, state, or federal.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
--U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, First Amendment

The language is plain and unambiguous: "Congress shall pass no law..." etc etc.

An "...establishment of religion" is defined as follows:

...a church that is recognized by law, and sometimes financially supported, as the official church of a nation. Also called state church. Cf. national church.

Therefore, it is a violation of Constitutional law should tax revenues find themselves in church coffers. "Faith based charities"—like “intelligent design”—are therefore religious in nature.

Surely that fact is not lost on the Bush administration which clearly refers to them as "faith based". A program cannot be, at once, "faith-based" and "secular". But that is precisely the issue that Bush folk have tried to have both ways. What is a faith based organization apart from its affiliation with an established church? And what is a church if not a place where religion is practiced?

Jefferson's language ["wall of separation"] is unambiguous:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
--Thomas Jefferson, in his historic Danbury letter, January 1, 1802

George Washington also chimed in on the issue:

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."
--George Washington, Treaty of Tripoli

And it was James Madison --author of the First Amendment, indeed, the Bill of Rights --who penned the very words: "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, It ill never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
--John Adams

John Adams was a primary rabble rouser, witness to and instigator of revolution. He was a mover in the founding of this nation and, in a position to know whether or not it was founded upon Christian principles. It was not.

A final point needs to be made about the Preamble to that document George W. Bush called “…a goddamned piece of paper!” According to the "Commentaries" of Joseph Story, the Preamble to the Constitution establishes the vert source of U.S. "sovereignty’, the people themselves.

We the people of the United States ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That means that these 'United States' belong to us. 'We' --the people --literally and by law --created them. They belong to us --not George W. Bush, an illegitimate usurper at worst, a caretaker at best. And, in that role, he has likewise failed us utterly by subverting the Constitution which establishes as a principle of supreme law that the people are sovereign. The nation thus belongs to the people. It is, therefore, our right --as Thomas Jefferson himself told us --to overthrow any regime and any federal authority which presumes to rule outside the rule of law!

Bush who serves at our pleasure, displeases us! We may, therefore, declare him 'fired' and, should he refuse to leave, he may be thrown out on his ass by force! The people of England understood this principle if the people of the US do not! When King Charles was determined to have placed himself above the law, he was beheaded for his hubris. I will be content to leave the Bush's fate to the judgement of a bona fide court which should --by right and by law --hear the case that our own King George Bush II is guilty of capital crimes.

Why I moderate comments
SPAM: 'comments' that link to junk, 'get rich' schemes, scams, and nonsense! These are the worst offenders.
Ad hominem attacks: 'name calling' and 'labeling'. That includes the ad hominem: 'truther' or variations!

Also see:

Published Articles on Buzzflash.net

Subscribe

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Spread the word

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

The Historical Significance and the Failure of George W. Bush

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Lincoln summed up what it was that made the United States not an alliance of separate states but a single nation of "United" states. Our nation was, he said at Gettysburg, 'conceived in liberty', an abstract, philosophical idea that had been given practical meaning in the US Constitution. We were, Lincoln said, 'dedicated' to a 'proposition'. '

Proposition' is a precise term found in philosophy and logic. Meaningful propositions are provable. They are 'meaningful' to the extent they are provable. Bush has no patience with any of that. He does not 'do nuance'. Our founders did 'nuance' and within it is found the source of American liberty: the Constitution. "The Constitution," Bush said, "is just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Thus --Americans are united not by ethnicity or other characteristics of 'nationality' but by abstract, philosophical principles. The US is a product of deliberate and considered 'choices' of an existentialist nature. Bush's failed presidency is already measured by the degree to which his administration exploited our patriotism while subverting the very source of it --those abstract ideas referred to by Lincoln: our very conception in 'liberty', our 'dedication' to the principle that all men are created equal, the 'nuance' wherein is found our nationhood.

The United States, though it is still a young nation, is already brought to the brink of its dissolution because one man, though he has derived power from the apparatus of state and nation, has failed to grasp the source of it or its significance. The political philosopher David Miller defined a nation is a group of people sharing a sense of common membership, believing that others, likewise, share the sense of membership and belonging. A nation, he wrote, is capable of acting as a 'group' the members of which share a common history, a 'shared public culture'. It is absurd to consider a regime wherein the 'defense' of this 'shared public culture' is, in fact, the destroyer of it. But --this is what Bush has done.

It is the measure of Bush's failure that the destruction of that 'shared public culture' so succinctly summarized by Lincoln, articulated significantly by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and, later, by James Madison in the Constitution, have fallen victim --not to terrorists --but to Bush's presumed defense of it.

It was Bush --not terrorists --who dismantled our Constitution with the pronouncement that 'The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper'. It was Bush --not terrorists --who declared an end of habeas corpus, due process of law, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizure, the rights of free speech, assembly and petition. It was Bush --not terrorists --who must surely 'just hate freedom'. It was Bush --not terrorists --who robbed us what it was that made us a nation!

David Miller stressed the importance of 'trust'. A history of the 20th Century is replete with stories of nations whose regimes were distrusted by citizens. The obvious examples are the communist regimes of the Soviet Union, China under Mao. But there are as many on the right wing --Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet! If my rights so ardently defended by Jefferson, so articulately described by Madison, are imperiously abrogated, what difference does it make to me whether the assault is from the left or from the right?

The US government while never perfect seemed secure in a system of checks of balances. It was Bush --not terrorists --who deliberately upset the balance. A purely partisan 5-4 Bush v Gore was the harbinger of things to come. Bush v Gore, it is said correctly, made no law. It's effect was to stop a recount that had it been completed would have elected another man to the Oval Office. The US government has been illegitimate since that date.

No one can tell if the US will ever find its way back. The Presidential primaries were uninspiring. The previews of the upcoming Obama v McCain race give me little hope. No one is talking about the only issue that without it nothing else matters: the nature and legitimacy of the government in Washington.

Published Articles

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Impeach, Remove, and Try George W. Bush for War Crimes and Mass Murder!

Federal laws state that '...whoever commits a war crime' resulting in death to its victim can be put to death. It does not make an exception for whomever occupies the office of President. This is serious stuff but so too are the deaths of some 4000 US personnel as well as the total number of Iraqi deaths as a result of this war of aggression, a figure estimated at some 1.3 million people.

The vast majority of those deaths were of innocent civilians, family members, tradespeople, store keepers --not men well-armed against a high tech invader/aggressor! This is serious enough to require that those responsible be tried for war crimes, and, when found guilty, punished to the extent and the letter of the law.

(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.
--TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 § 2441. War crimes

This is not a case that would baffle Sherlock Holmes. Among many complicit co-conspirators, one name stands out, the name of the person whose name is on the order to commence battle. It was George W. Bush who ordered the commencement of war. This act has already proven to be among the most horrific war crimes since those of Adolph Hitler or Pol Pot.

I have called for the prosecution of George Bush for 'war crimes' since it became clear that the US attack and invasion of Afghanistan was all about natural gas and pipelines. Before creating this blog, I had long posted those views on NPR's now defunct "How's Bush Doing" discussion forum as well as the likewise defunct "The Opinion". Recently, our lonely voices are joined by distinguished experts, jurists, attorneys and specialists in international law. Adding considerable weight in this area are the opinions of a Nuremberg chief prosecutor who states that there is a case for trying Bush for the 'supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.'

The extent to which American exceptionalism is embedded in the national psyche is awesome to behold.
While the United States is a country like any other, its citizens no more special than any others on the planet, Americans still react with surprise at the suggestion that their country could be held responsible for something as heinous as a war crime.
From the massacre of more than 100,000 people in the Philippines to the first nuclear attack ever at Hiroshima to the unprovoked invasion of Baghdad, US-sponsored violence doesn't feel as wrong and worthy of prosecution in internationally sanctioned criminal courts as the gory, blood-soaked atrocities of Congo, Darfur, Rwanda, and most certainly not the Nazis -- most certainly not. Howard Zinn recently described this as our "inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are penned in by the arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, superior."
--Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

Bush's war against Iraq was begun upon a series of deliberate frauds. Earlier, Bush had targeted Afghanistan where the US would defend --not freedom --but the interests of US oil barons, primarily a consortium of US oil companies which had planned to build the Centgas Trans-Afghan pipeline linking Turkmenistan's abundant gas reserves with markets in Pakistan. The Group was led by Unocal of California and Delta Oil Company of Saudi Arabia. Members of the Taliban actually met with Unocal officials at offices in Sugarland, TX, a Houston suburb, famous primarily as the home district of Tom DeLay who had introduced measures that would absolve Bush of the very war crimes that he most certainly had planned to commit. [See: How Bush Helped Establish a Corporate 'New World Order'; US 'planned attack on Taliban' [Before 911]; Dick Cheney Made Millions with Saddam Hussein ]

Not only is the war against Iraq a war crime prosecutable in US Courts for the violations it represents under the above cited US Codes, Title 18 [op cit], but also in US Federal Courts for the 'mass murder' of some 4,000 US armed forces personnel that have died upon this evil fraud. According to Charles Manson's prosecutor Vince Bugliosi, the penalty is death!

The measure exempting US troops from 'war crimes' was introduced by Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) as an amendment to H.R. 1646, The Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2001, on May 8, 2001. It passed the House 282-137 on May 10 and introduced as S. 857 in the Senate on May 9 by Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC), Zell Miller (D-GA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John Warner (R-VA), Trent Lott (R-MS), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Frank Murkowski (R-AK) --the usual suspects! Their very support of this measure --I suspect may be itself a violation of the international laws and conventions it seeks to circumvent or subvert.

The bill authorized Bush "...to use all means (including the provision of legal assistance) necessary to bring about the release of covered US persons and covered allied persons held captive by or on behalf of the Court [International Criminal Court, ICC, in the Hague]. Some highlights:

The President is authorized to invade The Hague. Specifically, the bill empowers Bush to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release from captivity of US or Allied personnel detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of the Court.
No US governmental entity --including State or local governments and court of any US jurisdiction --may cooperate with the ICC in arrests, extraditions, searches and seizures, taking of evidence, seizure of assets, or similar matters.
No ICC agent may conduct any investigation in the US.
No classified national security information can be transferred directly or indirectly to the ICC or to countries Party to the Rome Statute.
These provisions are in addition to existing US law (the 2000-2001 Foreign Relations Authorization Act) which prohibits any US funds going to the ICC once it has been established unless the Senate has given its advice and consent to the Rome Treaty.

This measure was introduced before 911 in anticipation of a 'War on Terrorism' that only those with guilty foreknowledge could have anticipated, a 'war' that would include US aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly no one but Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, the Project for the New American Century and high level members of the Bush administration could have anticipated the improbable series of events leading to the American quagmire in Iraq. Certainly, they are not 'psychic' despite a mantra repeated ad nauseam post 911: "No one could have foreseen...."! In fact, only the Bush administration 'foresaw' 911 in such detail, that they planned in advance to make legal the very laws they have in fact violated in the post-911 world. What incredible coincidences!

What war crimes were Bush and his junta planning even then that would require they be immunized from the prosecution of their intended crimes?

How does a man of no charisma, little talent and less intelligence get himself into a position in which he rules the world? Typically it is always done the Adolph Hitler way --a phony terrorist attack, a homegrown version of the Reichstag Fire. In Bush's case 911! [See: Bush's Conspiracy to Create an American Police State: Part I, Police States Begin With False Flag Attacks note: if all you have to refute this is a stupid label that you picked up somewhere, spare me! I will delete it! This blog deals in verifiable facts and/or meaningful statements. Labels --the staple of right wing, pro-Bush propaganda gets trashed where it belongs! ]

Well...hold on to your sorry ass, Mr. Bush! The people have the power to restore the Constitution, an essential outcome which begins with the removal of George W. Bush as 'President'! The second step is the subject of this article: the several prosecutions of George W. Bush in federal courts for mass murder and in world courts for war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity.

Principle I Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
Crimes against peace:
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.
--Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal

An October 2006 poll by New York Times and CBS News indicated that some 84 percent of Americans don't believe George W. Bush is telling the truth about what he knew prior to the attacks of 911. In the same year, Zogby reported that 45 percent of Americans support an investigation of George W. Bush by an International Tribunal. Such a tribunal should re-investigate whether officials of the US government allowed or consciously and deliberately helped or facilitated the attacks.

In the same year, 911truth.org commissioned Zogby which found that about half the population of New York believes that members of the Bush administration 'knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." 911 was, therefore, a deliberate act of mass murder perpetrated upon the American people by the man who presumes the office of 'dictator'. Since that is the title he prefers to 'president', then I suggest we stoo calling him "President Bush'. He is merely Bush or, more properly, Mass Murderer Bush, if you must attach a title.

Additional resources