By ABC 13

McALLEN, TX -- A South Texas grand jury has indicted Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on charges related to the alleged abuse of prisoners in Willacy County's federal detention centers.

The indictment criticizes Cheney's investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees by working through the prison companies.

Gonzales is accused of using his position while in office to stop an investigation into abuses at the federal detention centers.

Another indictment charges state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. with profiting from his public office by accepting honoraria from prison management companies.

From comments:
a president cannot be indicted while in office BUT that rule does NOT apply to a sitting Vice President, who can be indicted and prosecuted for his role in the commission of war crimes in Iraq and lying the nation into an aggressive illegal war of aggression, the supreme crime against humanity as defined at Nuremberg, Click Here, http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm

Attorneys, Scholars, Activist Groups Call for Impeachment if Bush Pardons Himself or His Subordinates

Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2008-10-10 14:36.

• Activism
• Congress
• Criminal Prosecution
• Impeachment

Please add your name as an individual or organization by registering / logging in, and then signing the petition.

The Steering Committee of the Justice Robert Jackson Conference On Prosecution of High Level War Criminals plans to demand the immediate impeachment of George W. Bush if he issues any last minute pardons covering himself or any of his subordinates. The president can be impeached and convicted even after leaving office.

The Steering Committee has released the following statement:

The presidential pardon power must not be distorted to include the power to self-pardon the president, or to pardon any staff or contractors of the executive branch, including the vice president, for crimes authorized by the president. The unconstitutionality of self pardons is discussed at length in "Pardon Me? The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons,"

by Brian C. Kalt in the Yale Law Journal, December 1, 1996: http://www.jstor.org/pss/797310

A self pardon by the President for himself or those who carried out his illegal orders to commit war crimes, said the Steering Committee of the Robert Jackson Conference, would make a mockery of the rule of law. It would, in fact, largely put an end to the rule of law. It is frankly inconceivable, said the Steering Committee, that the framers, who sought the rule of law instead of kingly tyranny, could have intended this.

The Steering Committee noted that Bush’s commutation of the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who helped carry out Bush’s plans, suggests the possibility of an attempted self pardon by Bush in the future. Also, the famed journalist Stuart Taylor has suggested a self pardon covering war crimes committed by Bush and his colleagues. A self pardon covering Bush and/or his subordinates, however, would require an immediate impeachment and conviction of the culprits in order to disqualify them from holding any U.S. office in the future and to avoid setting an awful precedent for future presidents to pardon their own crimes and those of subordinates.

I do not agree with THIS.

I think The Hague IS already acting. It's a multijurisdictional affair, afterall.

Any country involved in rendition and TORTURE is culpable, eh.

Local prosecutions and grassroots organizing are the key to saving AmeriKa from being a fascist, totalitarian state. What's needed is a special torture prosecutor, ASAP.

The DOJ led by Michael Mukasey has proven to be a sham. So We the People must do the job.

Here in CANADA, we must also act to ensure that feet are held to the fire and George W. BuZhCo. face prosecution for the SUPREME INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIME, which is genocide. Lots of ways to pursue this have been discussed extensively on this blog. See the recommendations made at the WAR CRIMES CONFERENCE in Andover Massachusetts ! There are many ideas. I think the ICC WILL be brought in, as a very last resort. A leash must be put on WAR CRIMINALS right quick, as the major party "candidates" intend to continue the war criminality.

This article is interesting, though.

Also, I always notice, when I read these articles and hear the speeches, no one mentions the FACT that Marcos was found GUILTY in the US of A. That is a heavy precedent to remember.

Virginia

By Peter Dyer
September 21, 2008

Q: What do Radovan Karadzic, former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, and George W. Bush have in common? A: Each lives under the slowly growing shadow of a body of international criminal law

This law is evolving towards the ultimate goal of holding even the most powerful leaders personally accountable for crimes committed by the State.

It is manifested in international agreements and statutes such as the Geneva Conventions, case law, two ad hoc war crimes tribunals (Yugoslavia and Rwanda), and a permanent International Criminal Court.

Radovan Karadzic, former Bosnian Serb President, has been arrested and now awaits trial in The Hague before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (I.C.T.Y.) on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Dominique de Villepin is one of 33 French military and political leaders who have recently been accused in a report released by the Rwandan government of arming and advising Hutu leaders in the genocide and crimes against humanity of 1994.

(At the time Rwanda was a French client state and de Villepin was chief aide to French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe. The 500-page report, based on a two-year investigation, accuses both men of crimes including enabling the genocide by violating a United Nations Security Council Arms Embargo against Rwanda.)

George W. Bush in March 2003 ordered “Operation Shock and Awe” (though officially dubbed “Operation: Iraqi Freedom”) – the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq – presenting the world with a clear prima facie case of aggression.

Aggression, in the words of the judgment delivered at the first Nuremberg Trial, is “the supreme international crime” because it unleashes all the other devastation and inhumanity of war.

Personal accountability by state leaders for the crime of aggression – initiating an unprovoked war – is the most profound as well as the most difficult goal of the continuing evolution of international criminal law.

For this reason, and because President Bush is head of the world’s most powerful state, clearly the shadow of the law is at present less ominous to him than to Karadzic or perhaps to de Villepin.

But there is no statute of limitations for any of these crimes. Things change over time, often unpredictably. And the international community has been working steadily towards this difficult goal for decades.

No doubt the work will continue.

Nuremberg Precedent

Although the effort to hold leaders personally responsible for crimes of state goes back to the late 19th century, the first significant watershed was the 1946 judgment of the first Nuremberg trial.

A panel of judges from the U.S., U.K., France and the Soviet Union held German leaders personally responsible and punished them for crimes of state, including aggression.

The roots of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals are largely in Nuremberg as are those of the International Criminal Court, although neither ad hoc tribunal charter included aggression.

One of the most significant achievements of the Yugoslavia Tribunal was the first ever indictment of an acting head of state, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, for crimes committed while still in office.

According to the I.C.T.Y. Web site, “the question is no longer whether leaders should be held accountable, but rather how can they be called to account.”

A major problem with the two courts was that they were each temporary responses to a specific set of separate circumstances which had considerable legal overlap.

The ad hoc approach was clearly limited by issues of logistics, expenses and repetition, many of which could have been more effectively addressed by a permanent court.

The achievements of the two tribunals as well as their limitations gave new impetus to the decades-old effort to establish a permanent International Criminal Court.

On July 17, 1998, the great majority of countries of the world voted in Rome, 120 to 7 with 21 abstentions, to establish the International Criminal Court. With the signature and ratification of 60 states the International Criminal Court came into being on July 1, 2002.

Six years later, as of last June 1, 106 countries have ratified the Rome Statute. Written into the Statute is a provision for member states to meet seven years after the entry into force (2009) to consider amendments.

Because the Statute is the result of decades of evolution and five weeks of intense negotiations between 148 countries, it is full of compromises. Even so, it is remarkable.

Never before has the world community united to create an institution invested with legal authority to write, adjudicate and enforce international criminal law. And, despite compromises, it is remarkable for the degree to which so many were able to agree on some basics.

Most important among these is a set of “core crimes” over which the Court has jurisdiction. These are: 1) genocide, 2) crimes against humanity, 3) war crimes and 4) aggression (the waging of aggressive war).

Conflict over Definition

Unfortunately, the Rome conference was unable to agree on a definition of aggression.

Unwilling to leave out “the supreme international crime” containing within itself the “accumulated evil of the whole,” the conference compromised, including aggression among the ”core crimes” but leaving it undefined in anticipation of a future amendment defining the crime and setting out conditions for jurisdiction.

One of the weaker aspects of the Statute is, of course, enforcement. As American Professor Leila Nadya Sadat, a delegate to the Rome conference wrote: “Here classic paradigms of sovereignty in which each state is master of its territory prevail. …The I.C.C.’s ability to effectively enforce international criminal law remains an open question.”

Unfortunately, a major obstacle to the I.C.C., enforcement and otherwise, has been the United States. The U.S. was one of seven countries which voted against the Statute — part of a list which included Iraq, Libya, Israel, Qatar and Yemen. Despite the vote, President Clinton signed the Statute on Dec. 31, 2000.

Less than two years later President George W. Bush “unsigned it.”

Other countries such as Russia and Egypt have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. Still others such as China and India remain opposed.

If major countries such as Russia, China, India and especially the U.S. ever do decide to join and throw their considerable weight behind the I.C.C. here are a few examples of what the organization may eventually be capable of:

--”Treaty crimes” such as hijacking and narcotics trafficking, while not yet covered by the Statute, are slated to be discussed and possibly defined and amended into the Rome Statue as early as 2009. There would be an international institution with the legal power to apprehend, try and punish future Osama Bin Ladens without the catastrophic destruction and waste of war.

--The genocide visited by Saddam Hussein upon the Iraqi Kurds (1984-1991) perhaps could have been stopped, or at least punished upon authorization by the Security Council.

--There will be a venue for resolving murky situations such as the recent violence in Georgia, where a court of law could be the only place to finally decide if and when aggression and/or other crimes occurred and who was responsible.

--Assuming that aggression is eventually defined and fully included in the Rome Statute, those who initiate wars of aggression, such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq, will do so knowing there is at least the legal possibility of arrest, trial and prison.

Ironically the United States led the way in establishing the precedent for this when the Allies at Nuremberg tried and punished Germans for aggression and other crimes.

At the moment, the prospect of an American president sitting in the dock of the International Criminal Court seems remote.

It should be remembered, however, that in 1973, nobody would have believed that 33 years later General Augusto Pinochet would die under house arrest in Chile, facing trial on charges of human rights abuses, including kidnapping and murder, committed during the dark days of Chile’s military government.

A lot can happen in three decades. Leaders come and go. Power ebbs and flows. National and international perspectives and relationships change.

Imagine the chilling effect the real prospect of arrest, trial and prison for starting a war would have on a head of state considering aggression. Such a simple and powerful deterrent could move humanity significantly closer to realizing the original vision of the United Nations: a world without war.

There simply can be no lasting peace without justice.

To quote Professor Sadat, “As humanity struggles to overcome its darkest impulses in this new millennium, impulses that led not only to the slaughter of hundreds of millions during the 20th century, but threaten our very survival, the creation of effective international institutions and regimes is essential … to transform the prohibitions on the commission of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression into real tools to deter the cruel and powerful.”

Next year in New York, the I.C.C. Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression is scheduled to conclude their work on a definition of aggression for inclusion as an amendment to the Rome Statute.

A review conference of the full I.C.C. Assembly will convene in 2010 to consider this and other amendments.

The work continues.

Peter Dyer is a freelance journalist who moved with his wife from California to New Zealand in 2004. He can be reached at p.dyer@inspire.net.nz

Here is ladybroadoak at the WAR CRIMES CONFERENCE !!

A bit late posting .. but here is the VIDEO re the culpability of prosecuting torturing war criminals like Nancy Pelosi.

Virginia

More articles appearing on Vincent Bugliosi, Prosecution of George W. BuZh for Murder

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

The Legal Framework for the Prosecution

By Vincent Bugliosi

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.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi, everyone.

I just registered for this conference (I cut and pasted the announcement
below). I hope all members and friends of Antiwar League throughout the country
and all opponents everywhere of perpetual war, empire, torture and the
police state will get involved somehow in this effort to pursue alleged US war
criminals "to the ends of the earth." This is just the beginning.

I am particularly excited that Vincent Bugliosi is appearing and that the
conference will consider how to seek indictments and prosecutions in state and
local courts. Also included is the topic of planning to "make the question of
prosecutions an issue in the fall political campaign." This means that
everyone can be involved in this effort in some way even if you cannot attend the
conference.

(Recommended article: _http://www.antiwarleague.com/_mgxroot/page_10687.html_
(http://www.antiwarleague.com/_mgxroot/page_10687.html) )

Please _visit the website_ (http://war-crimes.info/) and learn more about
it, and register if you can, and please circulate this message widely.

_http://war-crimes.info/_ (http://war-crimes.info/)


Doug Fuda
_ Antiwarleague.com_ (http://www.antiwarleague.com/)
14 Fletcher Street
Roslindale, MA 02131
USA
617 331-1491 (cell)
dougfuda at aol.com

See also:
http://www.antiwarleague.com/_mgxroot/page_10687.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Impeachment? Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

BY RUSS WELLEN 08.27.2008 | POLITICS

As you may have heard by now, the mainstream media has been giving Vincent Bugliosi's latest book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, the cold shoulder. Never mind that he authored what was, at the time, the bestselling crime book in history, Helter Skelter, about his successful prosecution of the Manson family. Nor that he's written numerous bestsellers since. His 2007 book, Reclaiming History, a 1,600-page attempt to dispel alternative histories of the Kennedy assassination, is being made into a mini-series by HBO and Tom Hanks.

In the only mainstream media article addressing The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder and its reception, New York Times reporter Tim Arango writes: "The editor of Newsweek, Jon Meacham, said he had not read the manuscript, but he offered a reason why the media might be silent: 'I think there's a kind of Bush-bashing fatigue out there.'"

Myth-busting aside, and however out of fashion Bush-bashing may be, Bugliosi summons up a depth and breadth of rage that shames those of us who have been reduced to ennui and cynicism by the Bush years. You'd never know that not only is he 73 years old but still on the rebound from the monumental task of researching and writing his Kennedy tome.

For instance, he has no compunctions about pulling the rug out from under soldiers' rationalization of last resort –- that they fight over there to keep from fighting here. To Bugliosi the question isn't why but who. He writes: "If you say our young men didn't die for Bush, Cheney, and Rove, then whom did they die for?"

Nor does he pull any punches on Bush's character. "What I strongly believe (without absolutely knowing) is that this man has no respect or love for this country." What makes him think that?

For starters, Bush put our young people in harm's way for no good reason, avoided the draft when young himself, and experiences no apparent concern for the carnage in Iraq. Furthermore, he spends much of his time in Crawford, neglects to read reports, and is guilty of blatant cronyism. What really sticks in Bugliosi's craw is the cheerfulness and insouciance that Bush exhibits in a time of war.

For instance, Bugliosi cites an August 2005 day Bush spent in Crawford in the midst of a two-week period during which 42 Americans were killed. With Bush's only work-related activity lunch with Condoleezza Rice, he called it a "perfect day." Bugliosi writes: "I don't know about you, but if I ever killed just one person, even accidentally, like in a car accident, I'd never have another perfect day as long as I lived."

At one point Bugliosi even declares: "Bush is a grotesque anomaly and aberration." If, even in the service of rallying us to prevail upon the Justice Department to bring charges, such exclamations seem over the top, look at this way. The least we could do is allow Bugliosi to vent since much of this book is essentially a turnkey project for a federal attorney to start the ignition on the prosecution of Bush and put it in gear.

A crime is an act that's not only prohibited, but accompanied by criminal intent. In the case of murder, this is known as malice aforethought, which comes in two varieties. The first is express malice -- the specific intent to kill. In the second, implied malice, the intent is not to kill but to commit a dangerous act with wanton disregard for the consequences as well as an indifference to human life.

Bush, Bugliosi writes, not only fulfilled the second requirement, implied malice, but he started the Iraq War "without any lawful excuse of justification."

Bush's defense would be self-defense –- that he needed to carry out a preemptive strike on Saddam. But lying that Saddam possessed WMD and conspired with al Qaeda to commit 9/11 shows that Bush wasn't acting in self-defense, but, instead, in a criminal state of mind. Hence, every American killed as a result of his actions are murders on Bush's part.

In most states implied malice is second-degree murder. But, Bugliosi writes, "Bush's alleged crime is. . . on such a grand scale that it would greatly dishonor those. . . who paid the ultimate price because of it if he were not to pay the ultimate penalty."

In the interest of prosecuting Bush for first-degree murder, Bugliosi writes that a "very credible argument could be made that in a real sense he did intend to have American soldiers killed in his war."

Say what?

Bugliosi explains. A typical example of implied malice is a high-speed chase though a school zone, in which "not only didn't the defendant intend to kill, but he had no way of knowing whether someone would die or not. [But] while Bush never specifically intended to kill any American soldier, he absolutely knew American soldiers would necessarily die in his war." (Italics are Bulgiosi's.)

He continues. "Therefore, a case could be made that unless Bush intended to have a war without any casualties, which is. . . an argument that would make Bush sound absurd. . . he did, in fact, specifically intend to have American soldiers killed."

In other words, as everyone knows, in war, casualties come with the territory. If the "natural tendency" of an act is to take another's life, the law can't help but conclude that was intentional.

As for his chances of success, ". . . as a former prosecutor with twenty-one murder convictions without a loss. . . I am probably in a better position than the average person to know what type of evidence is necessary to go to trial with." If he's rusty, he sure doesn't sound like it. In fact, he's begun to arouse the interest of current prosecutors.

Much of the rest of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder is given over to cataloging Bush's crimes. Bugliosi brings some to our attention that have gone unnoticed by many of us. For example, who remembers Hans Blix, UN weapons inspector, stating before the invasion that Iraq's cooperation in the inspections, "can be seen as active, even proactive"?

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder is a call to action. A man of 73, in the wake of years spent creating his masterwork, 2007's Reclaiming History about the Kennedy assassination, has constructed his case with the passion of an idealistic college student. Surely the rest of us are capable of catching one last wave of Bush & Co. outrage. We do want to see Bush brought to justice, don't we?

RW: On July 25 you appeared on a panel before the House Judiciary Committee with the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Elizabeth Holtzman to examine the "imperial presidency" of George Bush. When you appeared at the Great Mind Series in Los Angeles, it was reported that you said of Committee Chairman John Conyers, "He's completely behind what I'm doing here." Do you think summoning you to speak was Conyers's way of shifting attention from impeachment to a process with a better chance of success?

VB: Conyers called me up and said he read the book and liked it very much. This was before there was any mention of the hearing. Then I got the invitation. So I spoke to his assistant and I said I'm not an authority on impeachment. I'm only talking about prosecuting George Bush for first-degree murder. Everyone there was talking about one of two things: executive power and constitutional limitations or impeachment, and I was talking about murder. So they knew in advance.

Though they didn't say it, they may have expanded the hearings for me. I'm just saying that I told them that I was not coming back there [to Washington from L.A. -- Ed.] to talk about the subject matter of the hearings. Although, certainly, if you're talking about the basis for impeachment -- high crimes and misdemeanors -- murder obviously qualifies as one. They may have very well felt that what I was saying obviously did apply.

I tried to simplify for the hearing. I didn't have much time. The difficulty always is it takes more time to figure out how to convey your message when you only have a short period of time. [Here Bugliosi cites the famous saying attributed to either Pascal, Voltaire, or Mark Twain: "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I've written a long one instead." –- Ed.]

They're telling me I've got five minutes -- tell me what's in your book in five minutes. It took me more time to figure out how I was going to do that then if they said I had a half hour. I tried to compress it into five minutes, which was not easy at all. But I got some good stuff in there.

I want to make it very clear. I definitely believe that Bush should be impeached. There's no question about that. It's just that I'm not satisfied with impeachment, him not spending one day in the county jail, continuing to enjoy himself. I don't see any real justice there.

But impeachment isn't too likely because of a couple of things: One, the time element. Two, Nancy Pelosi, doing what Democrats do so well, is not in favor of impeachment and she's the speaker. That makes it almost insurmountable when you have the speaker against it. Three, impeachment would be good even if it's not successful. Anything to stain the record of this terrible human being.

You can't get a conviction on impeachment because you need two-third vote of the Senate and, as you know, the Senate is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Still, I'd like to see an impeachment at least. But the notion that would be enough for what he did is something that I don't agree with.

RW: You're not working in opposition to Congressman Kucinich, who introduced articles of impeachment against Bush, are you?

VB: No, absolutely not. I agree with everything Dennis says. But, again, impeachment alone is too good for George Bush.

RW: You also said to the Judiciary Committee: "It would greatly dishonor those in their graves who paid the ultimate price because of this war were you not to refer this case to the Department of Justice." Does the go-ahead for a prosecution start with Conyers and his committee?

VB: No, it doesn't start there. This is just one way to get this case going and it's the least likely. If they did it, then a criminal investigation would commence. The attorney general in Washington DC, that would be the best way. If anyone does anything –- I have to be candid with you –- it's unlikely that any one of the 93 federal attorneys would begin criminal proceedings without getting the consent of their boss in Washington, the attorney general. And that's why, realistically, on a federal level, there is only one person who would ever bring criminal charges against Bush and that's the attorney general.

I want to point out that the burden that has to be met when referring a case to the attorney general's office is very low. All that's required is that there be a quote reasonable unquote suspicion that a crime has been committed. Surely, there's a reasonable suspicion here that Bush took this nation to war under false pretenses. The attorney general's office can't prosecute him now but they can commence the investigation immediately. Then once he leaves office, at that point they can file charges. But there's only one attorney general and it's a highly politicized office.

RW: Will the next president have any say in the prosecution of George Bush?

VB: No, he doesn't have any say in it at all. The attorney general on his own can institute legal proceedings against Bush. But a pretty powerful way is for Congress to send what they call a criminal referral over to the attorney general.

RW: That was probably in your book. I just forgot.

VB: No, I didn't talk about criminal referral in my book because the most likely way is not by way of a criminal referral. But here's an example. You know about the Mitchell hearings and Roger Clements. They were talking about the possibility of a criminal referral from Congress to the attorney general. And that's still a possibility.

If they make a criminal referral that doesn't mean the attorney general has to investigate. But certainly it carries more weight coming from Congress than from a private citizen. Congress is spineless. They're not going to do that.

Anyway neither of these things is necessary and they're not the typical way. Usually when the attorney general brings a case, it's not because it has been referred to him by Congress. The typical way is just that he's the attorney general, a crime has been committed in the US, and he finds out about it. 99% of their cases happen that way.

The most likely way that Bush will end up in court after he leaves the presidency would be either a state attorney general or a district attorney. Of those two, the most likely is some D.A. in some county in this country.

But on a state level, I've established jurisdiction for the attorney general in each of the 50 states, plus the approximately 950 district attorneys in counties within those states. To prosecute Bush for the murder of a soldier or soldiers from their state or county who died fighting Bush's war.

That's 1,000 prosecutors. My position is that though there may not be a high probability, as a direct result of this book, there's a substantial possibility that Bush may end up in an American courtroom being prosecuted for murder. There's no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. Before Bush passes on, there will have been 15 to 20,000 prosecutors out there.

There may be some law student who heard me on the radio or read the book who's saying to himself, "When I get out of law school, I'm going to become a D.A. or state attorney general and I'm going to bring charges against Bush." Pinochet down in Chile? 33 years later they brought murder charges. His death aborted the process.

I'll give you something a little closer to home. There's a lawyer back east who said a couple of weeks ago, "Mr. Bugliosi, I read your book. We haven't lost any citizens from my county in the war in Iraq, but if we lose a soldier, I'm going to run for D.A. in the county. If I win, I'm going to prosecute Bush."

The reason I'm telling you this story is to show you there's a lot of people out there that someday can prosecute George Bush. I think I said in the book if I achieve nothing else -- and I certainly want to achieve much more because I won't be happy until I see him in a courtroom being prosecuted for murder.

If I achieve nothing else, I want him to know for the rest of his life that any give day, some aide on his ranch might tap him on the shoulder and say, "Mr. President, there's this prosecutor up in Fargo, North Dakota, sir, he's prosecuting you for murder. And we're due in Fargo at 10 a.m. Tuesday for your arraignment." I want to put that thought in his mind. This guy has gotten away with murder.

The thing that has angered me beyond all belief is that he's enjoyed himself throughout the entire period, had a lot of fun. How this guy can be enjoying himself when young kids are being blown to pieces by roadside bombing. . . what kind of human monster is this? It's just mind-boggling.

RW: You wrote, "I strongly believe without absolutely knowing that this man has no respect or love for this country." And, "I don't know about you, but if I ever killed just one person, even accidentally, like in a car accident, I'd never have another perfect day as long as I live." Now many of us think those thoughts. But we're either too afraid, or too politically correct, to put them into words. What makes you willing and able to say those things?

VB: I did the same thing with my book, The Betrayal of America. [about the 2000 Supreme Court decision to end the recounting of presidential votes in Florida]. All your legal scholars around the country were saying that the Supreme Court –- the five justices [who voted to end the recount] –- had done something just absolutely terrible. And that was that they caused people to lose respect for the court.

I said "What? You can steal a presidential election and all that happens is you lose respect?" That's like telling Timothy McVeigh, "Tim, don't worry, we're not going to hurt you. We're not goanna prosecute you. But, you know, Tim, we don't like you. You're a terrible person." So I wrote [an article in 2001 titled] "None Dare Call It Treason" for the Nation, in which I said these five were among the biggest criminals in American history.

But I'm a member of the bar and members of the bar don't do that. Gerry Spence said, "It's just not done." I was calling them criminals. But I sent a copy of the article by registered mail to each justice to make sure they got it. So I've done this before.

You're asking me where I get the courage to do this. People are always asking me, "How do you put this stuff in print?" Look, I'm not a courageous guy -- I'm motivated solely be anger. To me, the country is going down the tubes. I want to bring about justice. I don't think about courage.

I wouldn't do this, believe me, if I weren't so incredibly angry. I don't like to see anyone get away with murder, even one murder. O.J. Simpson got away with two murders and I was so angry I wrote Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder. People then were saying, "He was just found not guilty. How can you accuse him of murder on the cover of a book?"

"Fine," I said. "Let him sue me for libel. I'd love to cross-examine him." He didn't do anything to me.

RW: Most who've spent years in the legal system grow jaded and cynical. Yet you've been able to maintain a sense of outrage and injustice.

VB: I think of these kids coming back in a box and their parents -- maybe it's the only child they have. They're advised by the Department of Defense not to look in the box because the contents are unviewable. Sometimes it's just limbs coming back, parts of the body.

And this rotten, no good S.O.B. is dancing and having fun and joking. How dare he? I didn't say "how dare he" before the House Judiciary Committee because they told me I couldn't accuse Bush of a crime or any type of dishonorable conduct. But I'm saying it to you: How dare he? Quote me on that.

Bush can't be permitted to get away with this. I use the figure 100,000 Iraqi dead in my book. But that's a very conservative estimate. The number could be in excess of a million. I don't want him to get away with a million murders.

I worked on it, but I couldn't establish jurisdiction against him for the Iraqi citizens. But I spent many hours establishing jurisdiction to prosecute him for American soldiers dying.

RW: You lay out the whole process for any lawyer contemplating this. First you do this, then you do that. It doesn't seem that hard.

VB: No question about it. This can happen. I think I made an important point when I talked in front of Congress. If we want to become the great nation we once were, because I don't see this as a great nation anymore –- you can quote me on that -- the first step we have to take is to bring those responsible for the war on Iraq to justice. [Emphasis added.] I think that would enhance our image around the world.

RW: If we fail to prosecute him, what adverse effects would it have on the country and our image abroad?

VB:Well, probably not that much because most people are not even thinking about this. They're not thinking Bush should be prosecuted and if he's not we're a weak country. The vast majority of Americans don't even know this book is out there because I've been blacked out.

I'll tell you where it would have an effect though -- with subsequent presidents. People argue: "Mr. Bugliosi, you can't do this because it would inhibit future presidents." Here's my response: "If there's another monstrous individual like Bush who's thinking about doing what did, we do want to inhibit him."

If you're a president who's not a criminal, you have nothing to worry about. Who'd even bring a murder charge against someone under normal circumstances? Where would the evidence be? It's extremely important we do this to help ensure that it never happens again.

RW: The public is a little queasy about this sort of thing. In a sense, we elect a president to make the big decisions about life and death. War-time killing is on his conscience to spare ours.

VB: I've been on the radio all over the country. I can tell you that the average American who hasn't read my book thinks that the whole idea of prosecuting a president is crazy. "That's just absurd," they say.

I ask them, "Have you read the book?" And a hundred percent of the time they say no. I've yet to hear from someone who's read this book who think it's crazy. They may not agree with me but they don't think there's anything crazy about this book.

But those who haven't read the book think it's preposterous. I had an attorney general call me on the phone. He said he heard I had a book out about impeachment.

"It's not about impeachment," I said. "It's about murder." And the first words out of his mouth were, "Under what law?"

Now you have to realize the attorney general is the chief legal officer in the state. He's also the chief law enforcement office in the state. Under what law? Under the law that's already on the book in all 50 states. There's no statue that says it excludes certain people, like a president.

But people are not thinking in those terms. They think that the president is somehow above the law. So, not prosecuting Bush would certainly have an effect on some people, just not the majority of Americans.

But it could have a tremendous effect on our image around the world and a deterrent effect on subsequent presidents. And I think it would make the nation feel good about itself actually. But if it doesn't happen, this is something that very few people pay attention to.

RW: If Bush were prosecuted and found guilty, would you recommend the death penalty?

VB: Absolutely. It would dishonor those in their graves who paid the ultimate price if Bush did not pay the ultimate penalty. If I were the prosecutor I would seek the death penalty. I mean, my God, prosecutors seek the death penalty when there's only one person in their grave. Here we have at a minimum 100,000 people in their graves.

By the way, Bush is a proponent of the death penalty and he would have no difficulty understanding why someone would recommend it. 152 death warrants came across his desk while he was governor. He signed all 152. He has an 100% batting average. If I were the prosecutor I would seek the death penalty, yes, of course.

RW: Sorry, I know this question's not new to you, but I have to ask. Who's more evil? Charles Manson or George Bush.

VB: (Laughs.) I've been asked that question a few times. Obviously Manson is a very evil person. When I was prosecuting him I thought the death penalty was appropriate for what he did. I sought the death penalty and the jury did come back with a verdict of death, but it was set aside along with everyone else on death row by the Supreme court.

I also knew that if he got out he would continue to kill. He would kill as many people as he could. Someone who knew Manson a lot better than I do -- he's dead now -- little Paul Watkins [who split ways with Manson before the murders] said, "Vince, death is Charlie's trip."

Manson I knew as being evil. Bush is not evil. I don't think he wants to kill people. But I do view him as a despicable human being who is extremely cold-hearted and couldn't care less about the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. The evidence is overwhelming that he enjoyed himself to the fullest and had a lot fun throughout the entire war.

I don't think he wished those deaths on anyone. But I do think he couldn't care less. I think he is extremely arrogant, extremely self-centered, and without any redeeming human characteristics. But you asked a tough question and I have to do more thinking about that.

RW: You've been in the middle of all these great American stories. Beside the Manson case, the Simpson case, the 2000 election, and the Kennedy assassination.

VB: I worked on Reclaiming History for 20 years. That's my magnum opus. It's the equivalent of about 13 volumes of 400-page books, a million and a half words. It's got over 10,000 citations in it. It may be the most heavily sourced nonfiction book ever written. They used to say that the Warren Report had 6,500 citations and was the most heavily sourced.

I did write about the major crimes of the 20th century. People who've read my books believe I prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason why the right is so terrified of this new book is because they know I have a history of proving my case. So they have to be very concerned about this book because I'm not just some joker who's coming up with this idea of prosecuting Bush. I'm taking this very seriously.

As I said in front of Congress, at this time I don't have much time for fanciful reveries. Bush cannot be permitted to get away with over 100,00 murders. We can't have that in America. We just can't have it.

RW: The Prosecution of George Bush is being made into a film, right?

VB: It's in production here in LA. But the producers couldn't raise one penny for this documentary in America. The money came from Canada. By analogy, the audio tape for this book. . . I get a call from my agent: "Vince, I cannot find an audio company in America that will do the audio for the book." We had to get the BBC to do it.

The New York Times article opened things a very little bit. Before that, it was a total complete blackout in the national mainstream media. First time in my career I could not get on national TV.

It's never, ever happened before, for all my true crime books. I always fly to New York City and start traveling around the country. This time I didn't fly to New York. Couldn't get in anywhere. ABC Radio refused money from my publisher who wanted to take out a radio spot.

Bill Clinton, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, he's attacked and then impeached. They want to hang him in the town square at noon. And he's done nothing at all. Just silliness, sublime silliness.

Yet here we have Bush committing at least 100,000 murders and everyone is trying to protect him. Apparently, it's okay for him to do what he did but it's not okay to prosecute him or even to talk about prosecuting him.

All of my books have gotten major reviews all over the country. The Prosecution of George W. Bush hasn't been reviewed yet in the mainstream media. What does that say about America? Aren't we supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave?

RW: What can we do?

VB: The average American can contact your DA or get together as a group, 10 or 15 signatures, and send a letter to your D.A. or state attorney general. That's what people can do on a local level. Because that's where it's going to happen.

I don't think that the US attorney general, no matter who he is, is going to bring charges. If it happens at all, it will happen at the state local level. That's where this thing has a good chance. RW: Thank you, Mr. Bugliosi.

About the Author
Russ Wellen is an editor at Freezerbox who specializes in foreign affairs and nuclear deproliferation.

Activism - open letter to the Stop-SPP-digest: The US Government is now run by John Conyers !! SO ..

- Please circulate widely -

The US government is now in the hands of the US House Judiciary Committee, chaired by John Conyers.

Cheney will be impeached first, to make the point: TREASON DOES NOT PAY.

Canada has a present and at least one ex-Prime Minister who fit the bill, eh?

After Cheney, BuZh will be impeached.

War Crimes charges have been issued against Donald Rumsfield; War Crimes charges have also been issued against Australia's John Howard. There will be Canadian war crimes charges filed as well.

So I am taking the liberty to give any US Citizen who stops by the blog (run so far donation free), or gets my emails, the form they need to file complaints. Pick a random issue, ANY issue, and send in your complaints (gee, how many are there?) Just press the link !!

Unfortunately, the link is not applicable to US expats nor global citizens, but HEY! Send in those faxes, send him a registered letter, just keep up calling ..

Conyers' phone number:
p/202-225-3951

2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 p/202-225-3951

Remember: The impeachment hearings are on c-span!

Tune in, turn on, don't drop out!

I have been asked, by WAR CRIMES prosecutors,

to relay this message:

LAW SCHOOL TO ORGANIZE BUSH WAR CRIMES TRIAL

• Activism
• Criminal Prosecution

By Sherwood Ross

A conference to plan the prosecution of President Bush and other high administration officials for war crimes will be held September 13-14 at the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.

"This is not intended to be a mere discussion of violations of law that have occurred," said convener Lawrence Velvel, dean and cofounder of the school. "It is, rather, intended to be a planning conference at which plans will be laid a

nd necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth."

"We must try to hold Bush administration leaders accountable in courts of justice," Velvel said. "And we must insist on appropriate punishments, including, if guilt is found, the hangings visited upon top German and Japanese war-criminals in the 1940s."

Velvel said past practice has been to allow U.S. officials responsible for war crimes in Viet Nam and elsewhere to enjoy immunity from prosecution upon leaving office. "President Johnson retired to his Texas ranch and his Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was named to head the World Bank; Richard Nixon retired to San Clemente and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was allowed to grow richer and richer," Velvel said.

He noted in the years since the prosecution and punishment of German and Japanese leaders after World War Two those nation's leaders changed their countries' aggressor cultures. One cannot discount contributory cause and effect here, he said.

"For Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeild, and John Yoo to spend years in jail or go to the gallows for their crimes would be a powerful lesson to future American leaders," Velvel said.

The conference will take up such issues as the nature of domestic and international crimes committed; which high-level Bush officials, including Federal judges and Members of Congress, are chargeable with war crimes; which foreign and domestic tribunals can be used to prosecute them; and the setting up of an umbrella coordinating committee with representatives of legal groups concerned about the war crimes such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, among others.

The Massachusetts School of Law at Andover was established in 1988 to provide an affordable, quality legal education to minorities, immigrants and students from low-income households that might otherwise be denied the opportunity to obtain a legal education and practice law. Its founder, Dean Velvel, has been honored by the National Law Journal and cited in various publications for his contributions to the reform of legal education. #

#

(To attend or for further information Jeff Demers at demers@msl.edu (978) 681-0800; or Sherwood Ross, media consultant to MSL, at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com)

Sherwood Ross has worked as a publicist for the City of Chicago and public relations consultant to New York City. He served as news director for the National Urban League; and worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and wor

kplace columnist for Reuters. He has also been a media consultant to colleges, universities, law schools and more than 100 national magazines including The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Business Week, and Foreign Policy; as a speechwriter for mayors, governors and presidential candidates, and as a radio news reporter and talk show host at WOL, Washington, D.C. He holds an award for "best spot news coverage" for Chicago radio stations in 1963. His degree from the University of Miami was in race relations and he has written a book, "Gruening of Alaska," a number of national magazine articles and several plays, including "Baron Jiro," produced at Live Arts Theatre, Charlottesville, Va., and "Yam

amoto's Decision," read at the National Press Club, where he is a member. His favorite quotations are from the Sermon on The Mount.

This law school has been picked PARTICULARLY. A law suit has been filed against the ABA. This will legitimatize the attorneys it graduated, so ignore the ignorant comments at afterdowningstreet.

We who are interested in WAR CRIMES prosecutions are looking particularly for Canadian participants, so that Canadian WAR CRIMINALS are brought to justice !!

I have been asked by the WAR CRIMES prosecutor to stay here in Canada until that date and ORGANIZE, so any help is deeply appreciated over the summer. The relevant legal information has long been posted on my blog - under "Special Prosecutor Information" and is applicable to Canadian officials who have participated in GENOCIDE in Afghanistan.

All comments on Canadian WAR CRIMES are accepted on my blog. These are being vetted by WAR CRIMES prosecutors.

I would like to have a press pass to attend from Canada. If anyone on this list could accomodate me, I would be most appreciative.

Our Canadian segments of the WAR CRIMES prosecutions will be posted on my blog.

The relevant information on infowarfare, a term you will hear often used now, has also been posted on my blog under INFRAGARD.

Part One is to alert those of you in universities how to prepare for the next stage of liberation.

Any help getting up a Canadian WAR CRIMES site will be much appreciated. And all comments posted on my blog are being saved for historical purposes, so I urge you to post.

Sounds nearly "corny" to mention, but - there are

NO HUMAN RIGHTS without national sovereignty

and GENOCIDE is the Supreme International War Crime.


Time to take our Canadian TRAITORS to the woodshed.

Megweetch,

Virginia Simson
Many Rivers

impeach.to.end.war.crimes@gmail.com
freedetainees.org
www.ladybroadoak.blogspot.com
ladybroadoak@gmail.com
www.lowlevelradiation.blogspot.com

Don't forget as Canadians! - our fellow citizen, OMAR KHADR, is STILL not free!
Torture is torture no matter what you call it - and Canada is complicit in rendition, torture. And Omar Khadr is the Amistad of our generation.

The last blog, deals particularly with ONTARIO complicity in du, and other radiation-Canadian issues and could use some co-bloggers, if anyone is interested. This will help end Canadian complicity in du-related WAR CRIMES.

Happy summer everyone ;-)

We don't have to worry about the SPP anymore !!

I might mention: you might want to send thanks

to EFF Foundation

for the valuable work they did getting the

US Department of Defense emails released.

And please ..

continue to send letters of complaint to the ICC.