Why CAN’T We Prosecute Bush for Murder?
I’m asking this as a serious question — and so is former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. As you may remember, Bugliosi was the prosecutor responsible for putting Charles Manson behind bars, and his record as an L.A. Country prosecutor is equally impressive: out of 106 cases, he won 105, and out of 21 murder cases, he won them all.
Bugliosi may not be an expert on nuclear physics or on hip-hop dance stylings, but as an expert on criminal prosecution, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone with more experience or more success.
Therefore, when Bugliosi seriously asserts in his newest book that the President of the United States should be tried for the murder of over four thousand American soldiers in the war in Iraq, I’m inclined to treat this assertion with a considerable degree of gravity.
Before I bought The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, I read a sampling of Amazon customer reviews, which are really always very interesting especially when you put on your waders and tread through the ugly dark side known as the “1″ section, the most negative reviews of a given book. I figured that if the book were a complete Democratic polemic, the liberal equivalent of another cloacal spillage from the entirely estimable Ann Coulter, I wouldn’t bother. There are plenty of polemics out there. What there aren’t enough of are fact-based arguments where the facts come from reputable primary sources available to anyone to review.
I first became convinced that this book might be worth buying when I read the first negative customer review, courtesy of an Adam J. Schmidt of Washington, D.C.
Haven’t read it and don’t plan on reading it. The premise is simply silly. Congress authorized the use of force (Public Law 102-1) so it doesn’t really matter who said what to the public. Last I checked lying to people isn’t a crime. We’re not talking about perjury or lying under oath here, just lying in general. Not a crime. Besides which, I don’t even agree with the assumption that we were lied to. Intelligence is inexact and in the confused aftermath of a major terrorist attack we decided that we couldn’t take any chances on what else might be a threat. So we assumed the worst and planned accordingly.
To recap: silly premise, won’t read.
You’ve got to have a soft spot in your heart for a person who thinks that lying isn’t a crime (ever heard of fraud?) and that it doesn’t matter what Bush told the American people as long as Congress gave him the okey-doke on the Iraq war. Oh, and when he admits that he hasn’t even read the book. That makes me take him very seriously.
Well, what about the second negative review? This one came from “Trapper” of Washington State:
Its very title reveals that this is a slanderous insult on the President of the United States, and it does not deserve to be opened, let alone read. It belongs in the garbage. I gave it one star because at least one star is required and there is no minus ten stars available.
You’ve got to have another soft spot in your heart for a person who doesn’t know the difference between slander and libel and who — going Adam Schmidt one better — didn’t even OPEN the book.
What I’d love to do, and I mean this seriously, is ask any Bush supporter out there who has read the book and considered its arguments carefully to discuss one question with me here on this blog:
Why CAN’T we prosecute George W. Bush for murder?
Bugliosi makes a strong case for this very idea, basing his claim on a few key points, specifically that Bush sent American soldiers into Iraq with a willful and reckless disregard for their safety, and did so under false pretenses. The reasons Bush gave Congress and the American people for going to war against Saddam Hussein were either distortions of the truth or were entirely false, in stark contradiction to the intelligence presented to Bush at the time about the level of threat Saddam Hussein presented. Bush gave two central reasons why war in Iraq was necessary, if you’ll recall:
1. Saddam has WMDs and presents an imminent threat to the United States, and
2. Saddam is affiliated with al-Qaeda, who attacked us on 9/11.
If those two reasons Bush gave for going into war can be proven to be false, Bugliosi argues, and if it can be proven that Bush knew they were false at the time but proceeded anyway, knowing he was lying in order to begin an unnecessary war that would result, quite obviously, in American deaths, then he is responsible for the deaths of the four thousand American soldiers who died in Iraq.
To many people, though, the notion of prosecuting an American president for murder is simply inconceivable. In a June 19, 2008 interview with The Nation, Bugliosi stated,
The average American instinctively feels …that if an American President takes his nation to war under any circumstances, he can’t be prosecuted for murder. Related to that, people find it very hard to believe that an American President would engage in conduct that is so extremely criminal. You just don’t expect that of a President.
Americans just can’t believe an American President would engage in conduct that smacks of such criminality, and thus the whole notion of taking the President to court for murder is a revolutionary one.
Nevertheless, this is precisely the case Bugliosi makes. Quoting further from his interview with The Nation, here is Bugliosi’s comment — one that gives an interesting and representative sample of his argument from the book:
In order to make the legal case for murder the prosecution, you write, would have to show that George Bush had a criminal state of mind–in legal terms, “malice aforethought”–when he led the country to war. That strikes me as no easy task. Can you explain how exactly you would go about arguing such a mindset?
To satisfy the main elements of murder–murder being an unlawful killing of a human being with the requisite state of mind–the following question would have to be answered: Did George Bush, or did he not, take the nation to war in self-defense, as he claimed, as a pre-emptive strike? Bush said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was therefore an imminent threat to security of the country, so we had to pre-emptively go to war against him. If the prosecutor can show that President Bush did not take the country to war in self-defense but instead under false pretenses, then all the killings that have taken place would be unlawful killings, and therefore murder.
Without getting into legal complexities and technicalities, which I do in the book, let me give you just one example of the kind of evidence that could be used to make just such an argument. In President Bush’s first speech to the nation, on October 7, 2002, from Cincinnati, he told the American people that Saddam Hussein was great danger to our nation, either by Hussein attacking us with WMDs, or by giving these weapons to a terrorist group to do so. Bush said this attack could happen on “any given day,” meaning that the threat was imminent. The only big problem for Bush in a trial is that on October 1, just six days earlier, the CIA sent Bush its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified, top-secret report, that represented the consensus opinion of all sixteen US intelligence agencies on the issue of whether or not Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country. On page 8, it clearly and unequivocally says… that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country; that he would only be a threat to us if he feared that America was about to attack him. So we know–not think, but know–that when George Bush told the nation on the evening of October 7, 2002, that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of the nation, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him. Even if we have nothing else at all, this alone shows that Bush took this nation to war on a terrible lie, and therefore all the killings of American soldiers in Iraq were unlawful killings and therefore murder.
I’m serious, though, about what I said earlier: I would be eager to discuss with any Republican who’s actually read the book and is willing to analyze the evidence Bugliosi presents — evidence which is available to you, to me, to anyone — I would very much be interested in a politely-conducted debate here on this blog about the facts and what they imply.
To me, this is not an issue of conservative-versus-liberal or Democrat-versus-Republican. I’ll say for the record that a president — ANY president, whether Democratic or Republican, should never cause the reckless deaths of people who were willing to lay down their lives for this country. To me, and I’m sure to a great many people, regardless of political affiliation, this is a tragic slap in their faces that shamefully makes a mockery of those people’s sincere willingness to protect a country they were fraudulently convinced was in danger. For those wrongful deaths, justice needs to be served, or at least what form of justice is available to those soldiers and their families under American law.
I’ve discussed this book online with a few Bush supporters already, but what’s disappointed me greatly is that so far, all they’ve come up with are bald-faced assertions like, “I KNOW Bush didn’t know Saddam wasn’t a threat!” without either a) presenting the independent proof, document, interview, or credible piece of evidence to explain why this is true and Bush didn’t know, or b) attacking the credibility of the evidence I myself presented.
I admit, it’s very disappointing. I’m certainly willing to give credence to a valid argument, though. I have every confidence that there are intelligent, thoughtful supporters of Bush or of the war in Iraq who are willing to consider the factual evidence Bugliosi presents regarding Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq and discuss it with me here, so that’s why I’m giving the shout-out.
I would say “bring it on,” but that’s been done.
Looking forward to it,
Adso
Sorry, not here for a debate and not a Republican, but you’ve made me interested in reading this book. Thanks.
-Rob
I’m not a legal expert or a Constitutional scholar, Rob — just a lowly English teacher
— but I find Bugliosi’s argument compelling. Before I started reading it, I basically thought that it wouldn’t be possible to prosecute a president for a criminal offense. I knew it was possible to pursue a civil suit against a sitting president — Jones v. Clinton comes to mind on that one — but even I, who grew up during the Nixon administration, still had the idea of presidential sanctity, that somehow the president would be morally or ethically above committing a capital crime like murder.
As far as Iraq specifically, I’d never understood the necessary connection between why we were going to war with Afghanistan (which made sense; it’s where al-Qaeda was based), and then suddenly dropping Afghanistan like a hot potato and declaring war on Saddam. It didn’t make sense to me, and it seemed like everyone who talked about it was equating the two places under the general and undifferentiated category of “terrorists.” However, I dated someone from Turkey for a long time in college, and if it taught me anything, it’s that Muslim countries are just about as much alike as European countries — as if Latvia were the same kind of place as Spain. I didn’t get what the heck Iraq had to do with anything.
Now, as it seems, my confusion is explained: that’s because Iraq DIDN’T have to do with anything.
Anyway, yeah, I’d suggest reading the book and deciding for yourself.
OF COURSE YOU CAN … SO LONG AS YOU GET THE RIGHT TEAMS TOGETHER
Thanks for your support, David.
Impeachment, or even prosecution for war crimes against Iraqis? Maybe. For the murder of American soldiers under the current circumstances? Absolutely not.
Most Americans take for granted the presence of a relatively docile military. By docile, I mean that the American military isn’t the Fourth Branch of Government, whose political power decides elections. That military must obey all lawful orders given to it by the civilian government.
Prosecuting the Commander in Chief for the murder of American GI’s under these circumstances would be too great a breach in the chain of command because it would send the message to the military that *just maybe* they did the wrong thing by following orders, *just maybe* they should have disobeyed.
Even if every soldier knew for a fact that they were going to war under false pretenses, they would still be legally and morally bound to obey the order to go to war. Even if orders to go to war ultimately lead to their death, they are still legally bound to obey. Only under the most severe and outrageous of circumstances would it be desirable for the American military to disobey orders on a large scale. As in: a coup of the government by the President kind of outrageous circumstances. The military is far too dangerous of a weapon to bring threat of the breakdown of the chain of command.
Prosecuting Bush for the murder of American soldiers would give the military far too much power, perhaps not legally, but psychologically it would encourage military members to start acting on their own judgments instead of on what they are legally bound to do. The last thing America needs is a military that starts making decisions for itself, rather than allow the civilian government to make decisions for it.
Hi, Luthor. You said, “That military must obey all lawful orders given to it by the civilian government…”
****I absolutely agree that they must obey all lawful orders, but Bugliosi’s argument (and mine also, piggybacking on Vince) is that the orders weren’t lawful, and as a result, Bush recklessly endangered the lives of not only a hundred thousand Iraqis (give or take) but four thousand American soldiers.
***I’m not a soldier, never have been one, and I think war is morally wrong — but the reason why I think it’s wrong is because it causes dead people. I would think that any soldier who thought that a president could, without fear of prosecution of any kind, send me and my fellows into war for a lie, would be LESS willing to risk his life. If I’m a soldier, I’ve got to believe a few things, I’m guessing — and maybe folks out there who are military can enlighten me here if I’m wrong. Anyway, I’m guessing I have to believe this:
1. That I am fighting for a just cause.
2. That the reasons I was given for the fight are true. That doesn’t mean I have to see every secret CIA dossier, but it does mean that if someone tells me I’m protecting my country, my country better be in imminent danger.
Luthor, you said, “it would send the message to the military that *just maybe* they did the wrong thing by following orders, *just maybe* they should have disobeyed.”
***Well, let’s consider this from a few options. The military didn’t do the wrong thing by following orders. Heck, if your boss (or my boss) told me I had to do something, I’m generally going to accept that my boss is telling me the truth or believes that s/he’s telling me the truth — and I’m going to act accordingly. How much MORE true is that of the military? They operated in good faith.
***See, the military is one of the main reasons why I think prosecution should go forward, because after all, these folks DID obey orders, and obeyed them in good faith. They believed Bush and were willing to die for this country to protect it. If he lied to them, as I believe he did, then there needs to be some reasonable consequence to achieve justice and most of all, to prevent any future president from committing the unthinkable again. There’s no way we can bring back a dead 22-year-old guy to his wife and kid, and no way we can give some 24-year-old his brain back so he can be “pre-war Bill” or “Bill, version 1.0″ again…but we can seek justice for these crimes under the law.
Luthor, you said, “Even if every soldier knew for a fact that they were going to war under false pretenses, they would still be legally and morally bound to obey the order to go to war.”
***Yes, I agree — which again, is all the more reason that prosecution should take place. If we effectively say, “A President can order war under false pretenses, and that’s okay with us,” or “A President doesn’t even need to have a reason to go to war — s/he can order war against whomever for whatever reason and doesn’t need to justify it,” I would think that this default blank check, this get-out-of-jail-free card would rightfully result in wholesale desertions. Man, if the military has a problem making their quotas NOW…well…
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Luthor. Hey, check out the book — it’s worth a read.
Lying; everybody has their own definition. You can even make it a morality issue, in which the ACLU could step in and fight for your RIGHT to lie. Or, you could make it a religious issue, in which case it could be thrown out of court, along with the other nine commandments.
Here’s another discussion on peoples perception of lying:
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/07/i-did-not-have-sexual-relations-with.html
So, the question is, when is lying wrong? When it serves your purpose, such as catching another in a lie, or keeping yourself from trouble by lying? Or is it always wrong?
Bugliosi’s profession is one where truth and lies are woven together in an attempt to bring about a desired result.
I admit, I haven’t read this book. As a veteran, I’m curious as what Mr. Bugliosi’s intent is in this book. Is he using the deaths of my peers to attack a person he doesn’t like, or is he making a case for them? If he’s making the case for them, then I hope he is also contributing some of his profit to them.
I’m currently reading this book and I can reassure ‘bt’ that Bugliosi is definitely doing this because he thinks that not only the troops who have died fighting in Iraq, but their families as well, deserve justice. Towards the beginning of the book the author states he has been a life-long democrat but had a democractic President done the same thing, he would have done nothing differently – same book, same call for justice and prosecution. Above all, Bugliosi, and I agree with him, states NO ONE is above the law and if a crime were committed, which he believes to be the case, then justice must prevail.
I think you absolutely MUST read the book in order to have a cogent argument on the subject because Bugliosi documents very well why he thinks this case could be won.
Dear Web host,
This make for good reading, a step in the right direction. However, i feel disappointed in your believes for not going further. If you say W.Bush should be prosecute for murder for 4,000 troops, because Saddam was no threat, what about 120,000 Iraqi innocent victims (civilians)that as a consequence of the war died?. “War against terrorism”, you say!!!, more like “The war with the aid of Terrorism”. If it was not for Bush , Iraq would not be in such a mess.
BT, Madashell is right on the money when he says you might really want to check out Bugliosi’s book — even from the library where you’ll read it for free. He does address your concerns, and I think he does a clear, persuasive job of doing so.
Zack, I agree with you about the Iraqis — and I find it ironic that this week, Bush said to Russia that one shouldn’t “bully” other sovereign nations by invading them. Man, does he even listen to himself?
Thanks for reading!!
Bush is the worst president in American history. Bush facilitated the 9/11 attacks. Subsequently, Bush lied to Congress and the American people relative to the reasons for invading Iraq. Bush purposefully misled Congress and the American people. Then, Bush murdered more than 4,000 United States service members. And Bush wounded more than 30,000 United States service members. In torturing prisoners of war, Bush patently violated the Geneva Convention. Bush unlawfully wiretapped United States citizens. In using “signing statements” to challenge hundreds of laws passed by Congress, Bush violated the Constitution. Bush has ignored global warming. Bush is guilty of criminal negligence relative to the response to Hurricane Katrina. Bush disobeys our democratic values and Constitution. Bush is a disgrace to the United States.
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA