Several months ago I was listening to the Thom Hartmann show on Sirius satellite radio and his guest was former Los Angeles County District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi. The guest was promoting his new book entitled The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.
Bush is about to be lose his job on January 20, 2009. The closer we get to that date the more the traditional media will speculate as to what the former Commander-in-Chief will do in his retirement. Vincent Bugliosi, Esq. thinks Bush should spend that time defending himself in court on charges of murder stemming from the deaths of American troops fighting the Iraq War as well as the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi citizens. The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder is supposed to be a legal frame work for how to indict and prosecute the current President. In this two-minute audio vingette, the author states his reasons for creating this tome. The book's website posts excerpts from the book, one of which is labeled The Legal Frame Work for the Prosecution.
Excerpt of the excerpt:
Although I have never heard before what I am suggesting — that Bush be prosecuted for murder in an American courtroom — many have argued that "Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes" (mostly for the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. But for all intents and purposes this cannot be done.
*Even assuming, at this point, that Bush is criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in the Iraq war, under federal law he could only be prosecuted for the deaths of the 4,000 American soldiers killed in the war. No American court would have jurisdiction to prosecute him for the one hundred and some thousand Iraqi deaths since these victims not only were not Americans, but they were killed in a foreign nation, Iraq. Despite their nationality, if they had been killed here in the States, there would of course be jurisdiction.
**Indeed, Bush himself, ironically, would be the last person who would quarrel with the proposition that being guilty of mass murder (even one murder, by his lights) calls for the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment. As governor of Texas, Bush had the highest execution rate of any governor in American history: He was a very strong proponent of the death penalty who even laughingly mocked a condemned young woman who begged him to spare her life ("Please don't kill me," Bush mimicked her in a magazine interview with journalist Tucker Carlson), and even refused to commute the sentence of death down to life imprisonment for a young man who was mentally retarded (although as president he set aside the entire prison sentence of his friend Lewis "Scooter" Libby), and had a broad smile on his face when he announced in his second presidential debate with Al Gore that his state, Texas, was about to execute three convicted murderers.
I have not read the entire book--only the excerpts. During the above mentioned interview on the Thom Hartmann show, Bugliosi posited that any of the thousands of local prosecutors in the U.S., who also had a soldier or marine from their district die in the war, could indict the President for murder. Bugliosi also stated that the book contained a fictional account of how he would cross-examine Bush. In the 2008 Vermont Attorney General race Progessive Party candidate Charlotte Dennet ran on a promise to prosecute Bush.
Even without reading the book the concept of trying Bush for murder just isn't legally sound. I was hoping the book excerpts would give more concrete details but they don't. From the selected passages, the books seems like your typical Democratic rant about the foolishness of the war. I'm not a Bush fan and I love me some anti-Bush rants, but I wish the excerpts had been more technical, especially the section labeled The Legal Frame Work for the Prosecution. I just don't see the evidence to convict.
Hypothetical Facts that Could Expose Bush to Criminal Liability
Let's assume I'm the Commonwealth's Attorney (top prosecutor) for Arlington County, Virginia.
Consider this Hypothetical:
On July 21, 2005, George (G), who happens to be the President of the United States, decides to travel from his home in the District of Columbia to neighboring Arlington County, Virginia to visit his friends John (J) and Cyndi (C). Shortly after arriving at the home of J, G goes to a private room to use J's phone. G makes an international call to Karim (K) who lives in Iraq. G informs K that PFC Victor (V), a U.S. Army soldier and resident of Prince George County, Virginia, is going to be on a Humvee and passing through a certain road in K's hometown of Tikrit. G further tells K to place a roadside bomb on the route V will travel and to detonate the bomb when V drives over it. G advises K to use a certain type of remote transmitter to detonate the bomb because it is less susceptible to interference and will ensure success. K hangs up the phone and does as G tells him and V is killed.
Under the rubric of accessory liability G would be guilty of murder because he instructed K to kill V and gave him advice on how to do it. And G would be subject to the same punishment as K.
Because the call was made from Arlington, that would give that county jurisdiction to indict G. BUT, V was not killed in Arlington County which is a necessary element to establish jurisdiction. I'm not sure how Mr. Bugliosi resolves that issue.
From reading the excerpts of the book, it seems Mr. Bugliosi argues that because the war was based on lies and was unnecessary, Bush should be convicted for murder. While we all agree the war was a mistake, I don't think that is a solid legal argument. Once again, I have not read the entire book, but the very notion of prosecuting Bush for murder seems legally insufficient on its face. The prosecutor would have to prove that Bush had the specific intent to kill a particular person when he ordered our soldiers and marines to invade Iraq.
The issue is not whether the president can be indicted for crimes committed while in office. This article argues that nothing in the U.S. Constitution bars criminally indicitng a sitting president in federal court. The issue is whether a prosecutor would simply have the evidence for a criminal indictment in state court.
Questions Presented
- Can anyone on Kos who has read the entire book tell me if I'm missing something in my analysis?
- Even if you have not read the book, can you think of any realistic way to prosecute President Bush?
- If you were the prosecutor for your particular locality, what facts do you think you need in evidence for Bush to be criminally liable under the laws of your state?
Discuss.