King Louis XVI being executed 1793 by Guillotine- Good Enough for Louis it's Good Enough for King George W. Bush. Justice for despots. Bush had no problem putting people to death and even made light of it . So much for Compassionater Conservatism.
In America one can be put in jail for seven years for possession of a single joint of Marijuana yet you kill a few hundred thousand foreingers to steal their oil or just for the hell of it and you get re-elected as president and enter the Hall of Fame. Torture, murder of foreigners doesn't count for Americans nor does lynching black kids just for fun cause that's the American way.
Note: A form of capital punishment by using a device called a "guillotine" after its inventor (Joseph Guillotin), developed in France, to "humanely" inflict the death penalty through instant decapitation by the dropping of a weighted and sharp metal blade onto the restrained neck of a convict.
from Legal Dictionary.org/Duhaime
for more see: essortment/Guillotine History
Of course being Canadian I'm not sure about capital punishment in any case so life imprisonment with Karl Rove by his side might be best.
" If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. " Vincent Bugliosie
**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..." Vincent Bugliosie
For this post I am simply copying and recycling Vincent Bugliosie 's article about Prosecuting , Imprisoning and possibly under the law executing President George W. Bush for his crimes especially in relation to his unwarranted deadly invasion of Iraq. Bugliosie says that by definition Bush is guilty of mass murder and given Bush's stance on capital punishment that given the facts Bush should if found guilty be executed. Republicans, conservatives and Neocons are all in favor of capital punishment and so surely could not object to using it in the case of Bush or others who might be found guilty of murder . Otherwise they could be accused by people like Ann Coulter of coddling criminals and murderers .
So what method should be use the rope, electric chair, lethal injection or the dood old Gillotine.
One of the reasons I feel it is important to get this article as much exposure on the internet as possible since it appears the Mass Media in America and elsewhere have done their best to ignore Bugliosie's book or just dismiss it out of hand as if it were written by some crackpot with a tinfoil hat. But this is to be expected from the American Mass media who are the pawns of the likes of Murdock and the MegaCorporations who helped put Bush and his extremist Neocon Religious Right friends into power in the first place .
First here is the article from Huffington Post/ July 7, 2008- which claims that though the book has become a best seller it is still being ignored ny the Mainstream Media which seems incredible yet not that surprising given that the media see their job as supporting the Bush Regime and the War In Iraq while attacking any who dare question in a substantive manner any of Bush/ Cheney / Karl Rove authoritarian quasi-dictatorial regime's policies.
Ex-Prosecutor Accuses Bush Of Murder In Book July,7 2008/ Huffington Post
A book arguing that President Bush could be held criminally responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq is thriving despite a near total lack of mainstream media attention, the New York Times reports:
As a Los Angeles county prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi batted a thousand in murder cases: 21 trials, 21 convictions, including the Charles Manson case in 1971.
As an author, Mr. Bugliosi has written three No. 1 best sellers and won three Edgar Allan Poe awards, the top honor for crime writers. More than 30 years ago he co-wrote the best seller "Helter Skelter," about the Manson case.
So Mr. Bugliosi could be forgiven for perhaps thinking that a new book would generate considerable interest, among reviewers and on the broadcast talk-show circuit. But if he thought that, he
would have been mistaken: his latest, a polemic with the provocative title "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," has risen to best-seller status with nary a peep from the usual outlets that help sell books: cable television and book reviews in major daily newspapers.
The Prosecution of George W. Bush by Vincent Bugliosie , May,19,2008 an excerpt by the author
The Legal Framework for the Prosecution
That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution. -Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765 No living Homo sapiens is above the law. -(Notwithstanding our good friends and legal ancestors across the water, this is a fact that requires no citation.)
With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I've been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for "the little guy"), my political orientation is not rigid. For
instance, I supported John McCain's run for the presidency in 2000. More to the
point, whether I'm giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my
true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my
only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no
others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if
a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same,
identical piece you are about to read.
Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too
self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in
America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of
marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if
the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American
soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians,
including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously
has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. If Bush were
impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he'd still be a
free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and
freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely
and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing
ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being
responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true
justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did.Let's look at the way some of the leading liberal lights (and, of course, the rest of the
entire nation with the exception of those few recommending impeachment) have
treated the issue of punishment for Bush's cardinal sins. New York Times
columnist Paul Krugman wrote about "the false selling of the Iraq War. We were
railroaded into an unnecessary war." Fine, I agree. Now what? Krugman just goes
on to the next paragraph. But if Bush falsely railroaded the nation into a war
where over 100,000 people died, including 4,000 American soldiers, how can you
go on to the next paragraph as if you had been writing that Bush spent the
weekend at Camp David with his wife? For doing what Krugman believes Bush did,
doesn't Bush have to be punished commensurately in some way? Are there no
consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions?Al Franken on the David Letterman show said, "Bush lied to us to take us to war" and quickly went on to another subject, as if he was saying "Bush lied to us in his
budget."
Senator Edward Kennedy, condemning Bush, said that "Bush's
distortions misled Congress in its war vote" and "No President of the United
States should employ distortion of truth to take the nation to war."But, Senator Kennedy, if a president does this, as you believe Bush did, then what?
Remember, Clinton was impeached for allegedly trying to cover up a consensual
sexual affair. What do you recommend for Bush for being responsible for more
than 100,000 deaths? Nothing? He shouldn't be held accountable for his actions?
If one were to listen to you talk, that is the only conclusion one could come
to. But why, Senator Kennedy, do you, like everyone else, want to give Bush this
complete free ride?
The New York Times, in a June 17, 2004, editorial, said that in selling this nation on the war in Iraq, "the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/ 11, . . . inexcusably selling the false Iraq-Al Qaeda claim to Americans." But gentlemen, if this is so, then what? The New York Times didn't say, just going on, like everyone else, to the next paragraph, talking about something else.
In a November 15, 2005, editorial, the New York Times said that "the president and his top advisers . . . did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections." But if it's "obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans" in taking them to a war that tens of thousands of people have paid for with their lives, now what?
No punishment? If not, under what theory? Again, you're just going to go on to
the next paragraph?
I'm not going to go on to the next unrelated paragraph.
In early December of 2005, a New York Times-CBS nationwide poll
showed that the majority of Americans believed Bush "intentionally misled" the
nation to promote a war in Iraq. A December 11, 2005, article in the Los Angeles
Times, after citing this national poll, went on to say that because so many
Americans believed this, it might be difficult for Bush to get the continuing
support of Americans for the war. In other words, the fact that most Americans
believed Bush had deliberately misled them into war was of no consequence in and
of itself. Its only consequence was that it might hurt his efforts to get
support for the war thereafter. So the article was reporting on the effect of
the poll findings as if it was reporting on the popularity, or lack thereof, of
Bush's position on global warming or immigration. Didn't the author of the
article know that Bush taking the nation to war on a lie (if such be the case)
is the equivalent of saying he is responsible for well over 100,000 deaths? One
would never know this by reading the article.
If Bush, in fact, intentionally
misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him? Since many
Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only
one person, if we weren't speaking of the president of the United States as the
defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone
responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous.** But we
are dealing with the president of the United States here.
On the other hand,
the intensity of rage against Bush in America has been such (it never came
remotely this close with Clinton because, at bottom, there was nothing of any
real substance to have any serious rage against him for) that if I heard it once
I heard it ten times that "someone should put a bullet in his head." That,
fortunately, is just loose talk, and even more fortunately not the way we do
things in America. In any event, if an American jury were to find Bush guilty of
first degree murder, it would be up to them to decide what the appropriate
punishment should be, one of their options being the imposition of the death
penalty.
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.
In Bush's two terms as Texas governor, he signed death warrants for an incredible 152 out of 153 executions against convicted murderers, the majority of whom only killed one single person. The only death sentence Bush commuted was for one of the many murders that mass murderer Henry Lucas had been convicted of. Bush was informed that Lucas had falsely confessed to this particular murder and was innocent, his conviction being improper. So in 152 out of 152 cases, Bush refused to show mercy even once, finding that not one of the 152 convicted killers should receive life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Bush's perfect 100 percent execution rate is highly uncommon even for the most conservative law-and-order
governors.
The above is an excerpt from the book The Prosecution of George W.
Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi Published by Vanguard Press; May
2008Vincent Bugliosi received his law degree in 1964. In his career at
the L.A. County District Attorney's office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out
of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single
loss. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson case, became the basis of his
classic, Helter Skelter, the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing
history. His forthcoming book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder, is
available May 27.
and so it goes,
GORD.
No comments:
Post a Comment