Friday, September 19, 2008Len Hart
The fact that George W. Bush ordered and/or 'signed off' on that series of crimes called 911 can be proven in court. George W. Bush, therefore, must be prosecuted for the crimes of high treason, waging war upon the people of the US, and instances of mass murder in the US, Afghanistan, and Iraq. There is more than mere probable cause to bring those charges --there is a case that can be made now with official documentation available in the public record. Much more will be revealed in a real investigation, as opposed to another 'whitewash' commission like that now literally dis-owned by the co-chairs of the 911 Commission. The question then is: what must be done to make the question of prosecutions an issue that must be addressed by the candidates? What must be done to take this issue to the media and on the internet?
Recently, speakers Vincent Bugliosi, author of “Prosecuting George W. Bush For Murder”, Colleen Costello, Human Rights USA, David Lindorff, and Journalist David Swanson raised the issues at the Robert H. Jackson conference.
Bush should be indicted for war crimes uner US Codes.
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim --US Codes, TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441The commission of war crimes in which death results is a CAPITAL offense. The war against Iraq is just such an offense, begun as it was upon a pack of malicious and deliberate lies. There are also numerous counts that fall under the 'category' of murder as described by Vincent Bugliosi in his book: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, in which Bugliosi puts George W. Bush on trial in an American courtroom for the murder of nearly 4,000 American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq, a war begun fraudulently, upon a pack of deliberate, planned, malicious lies. Additionally, Bush may be prosecuted, as well, in international courts, in this case, the Hague for having abrogated US treaty obligations with respect to the conduct of war, i.e, war crimes.
While there is good reason to expect multiple prosecutions of George W. Bush and of his Vice President and top advisors by individual nations, the rule of law would benefit were the International Criminal Court to take the lead. Should it fail to do so, the entire idea of international law will suffer seriously. In the time since your 2006 letter, Judge Baltasar Garzón of Spain, on March 20, 2008, has written these words in El Pais:According to Richard Behan, buried among some 94 pages of the Military Commissions Act of 2006[lengthy PDF file], the Bush Administration admitted that it had committed prosecutable war crimes."Breaking every international law, and under the pretext of the war against terror, there has taken place since 2003 a devastating attack on the rule of law and against the very essence of the international community. In its path, institutions such as the United Nations were left in tatters, from which it has not yet recovered....We should look more deeply into the possible criminal responsibility of the people who are, or were, responsible for this war and see whether there is sufficient evidence to make them answer for it....There is enough of an argument in 650,000 deaths for this investigation and inquiry to start without more delay."You wrote in your 2006 letter that you cannot prosecute the crime of aggressive war but only the commission of war crimes that take place during a war, and that in 2009 it may become possible for you to prosecute the crime of aggression. While we must all strive to make that prosecution possible in 2009, it is not needed in order to prosecute George W. Bush, and his prosecution should not wait. As the Nuremberg Tribunal stated so well, "To initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." This has proven to be true in Iraq, and in Bush's global "war on terrorism", and there is no reason to delay prosecution for each separate element of the accumulated evil.--Prosecution of George W. Bush by the International Criminal Court, An Open Letter to Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court
Corporal Charles Graner, Private First Class Lyndie England, and several of their teammates are serving time, for mistreating prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.At the time these soldiers were tried and sentenced many people felt the culpability must extend above the ranks of enlisted personnel, up some distance into the chain-of-command, perhaps to the top. Many still do.There are two pairs of dots to be connected. One is a pair of small dots, the other two are huge.On December 28, 2001, a memo to President Bush from his Office of Legal Counsel made two claims: the US court system had no jurisdiction regarding the detainees at Guantanamo, and the Geneva Conventions did not apply to them.Acting on this advice, on February 7, 2002 President Bush suspended Common Article 3 of those conventions-which, among other things, prohibits torture. Two years later, thanks to CBS' 60 Minutes and the New Yorker magazine, the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib came to light. Connect those dots. These are the small ones.Subsequent lawsuits addressing the detainee issue were considered and resolved by the Supreme Court. Rasul v. Bush found the US courts did have jurisdiction over the detainees. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said detainees have a right to contest their detention: they are entitled to habeas corpus protections. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld tested the military tribunals President Bush created to bring the detainees to justice. The Supreme Court found the tribunals in violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and their existence to be illegal, absent a basis in federal statute. The decision was handed down June 29, 2006.Hamdan v. Rumsfeld put on display the Bush Administration's guilt in committing war crimes. This is one of the huge dots. It will be connected to another one shortly. --Richard W. Behan, How George Bush Admitted His War CrimesAt last, Bush should be indicted for the Crime of mass murder in connection with 911. Despite the political rhetoric clouding this issue, there is probable cause now to bring charges of high treason and mass murder against Bush. The 'official conspiracy theory of 911' itself must be taken apart. That such a pack of lies was deliberately concocted and intended to deceive is, itself, a crime, a deliberate act of obstruction of justice.Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole (R) and has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous man has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to get this information out to people.
"This (9/11) was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder." --Stanley Hilton, The Intelligence DailyHilton, a successful lawyer, was a former chief of staff for Bob Dole who was once a GOP Presidentail hopeful. On behalf of hundreds who lost relatives and family in the crime called 911, Hilton has filed suit against George W. Bush alleging the 'President's' personal involvement and culpability.
Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject - how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years. --Stanley Hilton, The Intelligence DailyBush, indeed, appeared almost "uninterested and nonchalant" when, on the morning of 911, his Chief of Staff, Andy Card, whispered to him the news that a 'second plane' had crashed in New York. Bush, claims Hilton, thought it just 'another rehearsal'.
In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a few months later at a California press conference when he said he had, quote, "seen on television the first plane attack the first tower." And that could not be possible because there was no video.How could Bush have seen what he said he saw?
How Could Bush Have Seen What He Said He Saw?Hilton states that Bush had personally ordered 911, it was "... a personally government-ordered thing."
We are suing them under the Constitution for violating Americans' rights, as well as under the federal Fraudulent Claims Act, for presenting a fraudulent claim to Congress to justify the bogus Iraq boondoggle war, for political gains. And also, under the RICO statute, under the Racketeering Corrupt Organization Act, for being a corrupt entity. And I've been harassed personally by the chief judge of the federal court who is instructing me personally to drop this suit, threatened to kick me off the court, after 30 years on the court. I've been harassed by the FBI. My staff has been harassed and threatened. My office has been broken into and this is the kind of government we are dealing with.--Stanley HiltonBush, of course, could not have seen the first plane. He lied. It was a stupid lie that gives the game away. Bush lied about it on two separate occasions. Only an idiot would repeat a transparent lie about an event in which the only credible explanations implicate Bush himself in an act of high treason and mass murder! I have bad news for Bush: 'idiocy', at this level, is not a defense. Religious folk will tell you that the term deceiver of nations' is how the book of Revelations defines 'The Beast'. Trouble is, Bush didn't really deceive anyone. For most of his critics, Bush was always suspect number 'one'. Nor did Bush deceive millions of willful idiots who knew he was lying but didn't care. They were doing just fine banking the tax cuts that only the very wealthy got. Marginally smarter than Bush, they were still duped into believing that the war of aggression against Iraq would result in cheap gasoline with which to fuel their SUVs. Lately, however, their tune has changed. But too late to shuck off the the disease of complicity. The really big contributors --those with policy influence --should be rounded up and charged.
The following video summarizes how the Bush cabal found common interests with Larry Silverstein, how both groups benefited by helping Larry Silverstein remove the 'white elephant' form his otherwise profitable portfolio. These irredeemably evil people had method, motive and opportunity.
911 has turned out to be short-term political bonanza for George W. Bush who parlayed the events into a virtual dictatorship. Upon the 911 pretext, he waged wars against Afghanistan on behalf of a pipeline consortium and against Iraq on behalf of almost every major oil company in the United States.
It was all, in fact, a very simple crime. The facts of the case are undeniable. It could become a prosecutor's dream. The 'official conspiracy' is not true in any way or any part. The official theory is, in fact, impossible, a bald-faced lie which even the co-chairs of the 911 Commission now disown. It was Conan Doyle by way of his creation, Sherlock Holmes who said: "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth!"
The truth is that George W. Bush conspired to commit high treason and mass murder that he might embark upon a program of additional mass murders in Afghanistan and Iraq even as he waged war upon the people of the United States. The term for that is: HIGH TREASON! The other term is: MASS MURDER! Additional resources:
- George W Bush Authorized 911 Attacks Says Government Insider
- The United States and the International Court
- Forum Re: The Prosuction of George W. Bush, Robert H. Jackson Foundation