Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul Is Wrong - George W. Bush Must Be Tried for MURDER! As much as I admire his ideas, sometimes Ron Paul disappoints me.by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
(libertarian)
Saturday, December 6, 2008
In a thrilling, thought-provoking 4-part video series on Youtube (Part 1, 2, 3, 4) Stefan Molyneux of www.freedomainradio.com declares that "Statism is Dead." At least in the moral sense, he is completely right. In reality, the Ron Paul rEVOLution and non-statists everywhere have a lot of teaching to do! [By the way, I particularly like Part 3, a movie where everyone, including most libertarians are compared to livestock. Funny, and it holds a lot of truth.]
In Part 2, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," Mr. Molyneux takes a shot at one of my heroes, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas for not pressing for the impeachment of George Bush. The charge is that not only did Bush purposefully mislead the American public about the Iraq War, but he also is committing the murder of his own Army.
"Even Ron Paul, the fabled hero and defender of virtue, refuses to press for the impeachment won't even say the guy should be fired! Let alone face the death penalty for genocide.
If I claim to be superhero [ie, the statist American government which in this case, sorry, includes Dr. Paul] entirely devoted to moral righteousness and the protection of the innocent, and I see a child being beaten to death right in front of me, and I step over this murder in order to give someone a parking ticket, can anyone believe my moral claims ever again?"
I cannot and will not defend the good doctor here, as I share Molyneux's conviction per this excerpt from my July article "Book Synopsis: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi". I challenge anyone who has read the book to defend Paul from Bugliosi's claim that Bush should be tried for the murder of our servicemen and women in Iraq. Here is most of my article:
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder is far more than an anti-Bush rant. Bugliosi, famed for his successful prosecution of Charles Manson for murder, clearly outlines a solid legal case and jurisdiction details for placing Bush on trial in an American court for the murder of the 4,124+ American soldiers killed so far in the Iraq war. Bugliosi puts forth a solid argument that:
Bush specifically intended to have American soldiers killed in Iraq
Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rowe led their administration to deliberately deceived Congress and the American people into believing Saddam was an imminent threat to the national security of the United States via "ties to al-Qaeda" and "WMD" while being informed by all intelligence agencies to the contrary that Hussein was not, and
Bush knowingly, even eagerly, decided to launch the preemptive invasion, all the time while knowing it was not the act of self-defense he claimed it was.
Bugliosi delivers the most damning character assassination of Bush I have ever read, though scathing, is also utterly objective - and mostly done by simply documenting his words and actions, both pre- and post-9/11. In addition, he has a great habit of prelisting and disarming possible retorts from the opposition.
I specifically like Bugliosi's point that since murder has no statute of limitation and that an attorney general from any state could bring a murder charge against Bush at any time. Even if no one takes up Bugliosi's charge in 2009, Bush will be served with justice like the US-backed Chilean dictator/murderer Augusto Pinochet, taken to court after a 31-year delay. Perhaps the possibility will keep him awake at night, a persistent fear in the depths of his weak mind.
Here is a long snippet on the Afghan war from pages 214-219:
"In December of 2001, just a few months after 9/11, the American military learned that Bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora, a dense mountain range in southeastern Afghanistan Instead of sending thousands of American soldiers to go into the mountain range to capture or kill Bin Laden, Bush did not send one single American soldierOne of the warlords, in disbelief and frustration told the assembled press who had converged on Tora Bora: "If America wants to capture Osama, why aren't they trying?" A top aide to [the warlord fighting al-Qaeda] said: "I don't think the United States wants to capture Osama. We know where he is, we tell them and they do nothing. So they are not as serious as they say they are."
From the day of the invasion (commenced by air strikes) in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, through December 7, when the Taliban regime collapsed, not one single American soldier died in combat. Why? Because the real fighting in the Afghan war was being done almost exclusively by the Northern Alliance. Our military was only there in an advisory and support capacity and our air force, from its safe position high in the clouds beyond the range of the very limited Taliban antiaircraft artillery, dropped bombs on the almost medieval country. If you want to call this "fighting" a war, then you have a different view than I do of what this word means...
A man is seated with his wife at a restaurant table. An armed killer enters the restaurant, shoots and kills the wife, then flees. The man, who everyone would automatically assume would pursue the killer since it was his wife who was killed, and since, it turns out, he was fully armed to do so, decides not to. He tells a stranger at a nearby table that he would appreciate it if he would pursue the killer, which the third party does. That's exactly what Bush did in the Afghanistan war. Three thousand Americans were murdered, Bush vowed to go after the perpetrators, but instead asked the Northern Alliance, which never lost one of its members during 9/11, to in effect "get even" with the 9/11 killers for us. Shocking? Unbelievable? Yes, but 100 percent true. And through all of this, Bush's approval rating remained extremely high (84%...) and we learned how very brave and ballsy Bush was.
With respect to Bush not wanting to use one American soldier to fight the Afghan war, it wasn't until March 4th, 2002, five months after the war commenced, that American soldiers started fighting in a normal, military way. This, from the March 5, 2002, edition of the New York Times: "In some of the fiercest fighting of the five-month war in Afghanistan, American ground forces took the lead in a large-scale combat operation for the first time
Bottom line: Although 3,000 American were murdered by Bin Laden's al-Qaeda on 9/11, and we knew the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda and although Bush was receiving towering praise in America from Republicans as well as Democrats for his supposedly tough stance against terrorism and his vow to bring back Bin Laden "dead or alive" and to "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbored them" Bush's original intent was to not send one American soldier to go after Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, all of whom were responsible for 9/11. But Bush was very, very eager, to the point of lying to the American public to get his way, to put over 150,000 American soldiers in harm's way to go after Saddam Hussein, who he knew had nothing to do with 9/11."
The rest of the commentary on Bush's pre- and post-9/11 lies and actions, especially the section on his criminal intent, are just as worthwhile. Bugliosi complains of a "virtual blackout" from the mainstream media, just like the media blackout of the Bush impeachment hearing last week, where Bugliosi also spoke. (Sound familiar? For a great set of articles exploring and damning the US's propaganda ministry please try the latest from Dan Alba's column "Detain This.") After a lengthy search for a publisher, Vanguard Press, a division of Perseus Books, courageously agreed to publish the book in May, and it now looks like they will profit. Since May, the book has sold 130,000 copies and shot up from #16 to #9 on the New York Times Bestseller list on July 27.
Well, the fact remains that where other authors stopped short in condemning Bush using legal tactics, Bugliosi empathically ended their sentence. Bush's alleged acts and state of mind meet the legal definition of murder. The same case exists for the murder of 100,000+ Iraqis, although American jurisdiction does not apply. Whether you are cackling with glee or staring in disbelief, Bugliosi's book is to be saluted. First Amendment believers can rejoice!
Combined with Sherry Baker's article that outlines the case (pdf link) to prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others as war criminals for Torture, if We the People can pull this off, we just might just might be one big step closer to getting our country back.
So the big question is will the new POTUS pardon Bush? Will Bush or the new POTUS pardon Cheney, Rowe, and the rest? From what I have read online, I do think there is a fairly high chance that some legal teams are chomping at the bit to go after Bush after Jan 20th.
And if the new POTUS (assuming it is Obama, more on this in my next article) DOES pardon Bush, what a message this will send to the American people! It could rip the moral fabric of our corrupt statist dualopoly wide open! What do you think?
Time for me to write to Campaign for Liberty to make sure we are on Bugliosi's side. Does the "Rule of Law" ring any bells?
... A thousand lies, And a good disguise. Hit ‘em right between the eyes! Hit ‘em right between the eyes! When you walk away, Nothing more to say. See the lightning in your eyes! See‘em running for their lives!
Now dance, f***er, dance! He never had a chance!
- Offspring, "You're Going to Go Far, Kid" We'll see what chance Bush has from escaping the Justice of We the People after Jan 20.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings in part or full of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.
Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.
Will Joey Biden Be President? THE BARACK OBAMA BIRTH SAGA CONTINUES Published: December 7, 2008 When I first started writing on the constitutional eligibility of both Barack Obama and John McCain after the conventions, I thought the issue would be quickly silenced. Forgive my chuckling and a cheer as the forces of the Constitution continue their valiant charge for that "damn piece of paper."
The Next Bubble to Pop! Published: December 7, 2008 "These days, I am more concerned with the return OF my capital, not the return ON my capital." - attributed to Mark Twain
A Salute to Malalai Joya - Afghanistan's Tom Paine Published: August 8, 2008 Malalai Joya, a brave lady and banned legislator from Afghanistan, fights for justice, human rights, and democracy. She battles both the Warlords in power, the Taliban... and the American Government, which is probably why you have never heard of her.
SPOOF: New Element Discovered in America! Published: December 5, 2008 The heaviest element ever was discovered yesterday by Franklin Delano Mussolini Laboratories of Washington, DC. Read all about it!
Words of Advice for the next Secretary of State Published: December 3, 2008 President-elect Barack Obama recently announced his pick for SecState: Senator Hillary Clinton. Here is some advice for her, from a former Secretary of State by the name of John Quincy Adams.
Ron Paul Wastes Chance to Deliver KO Punch to FED Published: November 20, 2008 Ron Paul failed to wipe the floor with Bernanke in the last Congressional Hearing. Here's why. Shift tactics next time!
Save Ron Paul's Voice - A Money Matrix Addendum Published: September 28, 2008 Learn how by reading. Article is intended as a poke-in-the-eye for members of the Ron Paul Revolution who complain about the bailouts and the financial, banking, and housing crises and do not realize that they may in fact be hypocrites.
The Drones Did It! Published: November 8, 2008 "The catch-all phrase - The War on Terror. In all honesty, has no more meaning than if you want to wage a War on criminal Gangsterism. Terrorism is a Tactic. You can't have a War against a Tactic. It's deliberately vague and nondefinable in order to justify and permit perpetual War anywhere and under any circumstances." - Dr. Ron Paul. Pakistan's Chaos Continues.
SPOOF: Ron Paul Promises To Return When Country Needs Him Most Published: October 25, 2008 As the McBama presidential "race" nears its thrilling conclusion, I follow a Ron Paul spoof from TheOnion.com with a serious question. Who will lead the Revolution next?
Police State Stomps on Iraq Veteran's Face as McBama Sanctions Attack on Freedom of Speech: The Story of the Hempstead 15 (Part 1/3) Published: October 25, 2008 What? Yet another event the media completely missed? After multiple attempts to engage McBama to answer their questions, the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) led a peaceful march on the last McCain-Obama Presidential Debate and were met with 30 mounted police and a horde of others in riot gear. The mounted police stamped on an Iraq war veteran's face and attacked the crowd. Ron Paul supporter and veteran Adam Kokesh was arrested as well.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Good article Jake. Are you sure American jurisdiction would not apply also to the murder of hundreds of thousands [estimates are from 100 to 600 thousand] of Iraqi citizens? Bush was able to accomplish this while standing on American soil. Wouldn't that qualify it as a crime to be tried by American courts?
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-12-06 12:10:17
Bugliosi writes about this and basically his opinion is the case for Bush murdering our own troops is watertight with regards to the jurisdiction and evidence for the American law system, with Iraqi citizens jurisdiction not so clear.
W should be tried for murder. Not only would it be justice but it would also send a message to future presidents; no more of these bullshit wars that have nothing to do with our security.
Jake, Ive always enjoyed your writings and this is no exception but sadly the so-called opposition party has no spine (with the exception of Dennis Kucinich), members of his own party that do speak up against him are quickly silienced and told to get inline, big media is bought and paid for and of course the conservative pundits in the media those so called voices of freedom (Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reily, Hannity, Savage (although Savage has slammed Bush but I dont think he actually means what he says). etc) will just dismiss it as nothing but liberal lies and their sheeple will believe it.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-12-30 11:12:06
Jake thanks for the continued correspondence. But consider this:
I spent 2007 in Afghanistan supporting the International Poppy Irradication Program. Historically the US supported the Taliban due to their tough stance on poppy exports. I personally believe that like Noriega the Taliban got greedy and did not want to share the international poppy crop with the US government anymore. Hence the Northern Alliance that stood to gain control of Afghanistans poppy exports were more than willing to get invovled in defeating the (competition) Taliban.
Since the US has occupied Afghanistan, international opium poppy crop has increased every year. How is this possible?
We would fly over miles and miles of poppy fields, hook up with a local cheiftain and then go destroy "that guys" meager 2 or 3 acres of crop. Only to fly miles and miles over unmolested poppy back to our FOB. Our FOB even had poppy and cannabis growing on it, but we were there to irradicate those same crops.
How does bumper crops of poppy get out of Afghanistan and into the world markets? The terrain is incredibly harsh (makes the Rockies look like the Smokies) making man portable transport of any quantity almost impossible. But consider the amount of air traffic that moves around the country. Consider the large amounts of large cargo aircraft that rotate in and out of the country daily (Bahgram looks like Dulles). Consider that, during the Vietnam War most herion came to the US in military jets and coffins (watch American Gangster).
Now I may be grabbing at straws here but what I see with my own eyes and what I hear from the media and my government dont jive.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-12-30 16:03:59
Dear patrick henry -
Interesting. It has been rumored "our" gov't did much the same back in Laos during 'Nam, see attached movie. I think it was Scheuer's "Imperial Hubris" I was reading then he went into the truth as he saw it of the opium trade - that the Taleban had just about stamped it out, and the US war revived it. Man, I hope our troops there aren't using the stuff - seems like a smart way to get them to not mind the passage of time - but we probably wont know this one way or the other for years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITf5QM6Aeck
Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins goes a little into the drug trade as well, and his opinion on Noriega and Ecuador is quite interesting as well.
Without a smoking gun we are both grabbing at straws here, but I would say your experiences of missing some fields only to hit others sounds as if you guys were just an unwittingly tool of the tribals to hit their enemies. Sort of like Colombia perhaps?
The legal definition of "murder" is the UNLAWFUL killing of a human being by another. War, by definition, legalizes this action when in combat.
You have to remember that a PRESIDENT cannot do anything without the votes of the Congress who supposedly represent the country. One man, no matter what office he holds in this country cannot DO anything alone. We do not live under a dictatorship.
Who, exactly should be prosecuted for murder in a "war", even an undeclared one, of which we have had many. Korea, Vietnam, and so forth. The President who orders miltary action, Congress who supports him, Military Generals who orchestrate it, or the men and women who actually do the killing?
I agree with Raven to an extent. While I don't think Mr. Bush is guilty on murder charges, he isn't exactly exempt from war crimes and severe breaches on the Constitution. When will we learn that when a leader is willing to trade away liberty for "security", that leader is a wolf in sheeps clothing? Good thing we have term limits on presidents, not like Bush would've been able to beat Obama. Now if only we can put term limits on those pesky Congressmen.
I will never forget that George Bush got away with murder. His reign of terror will go down in history as the biggest crimminal misadventure ever perpetrated on America!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
"In December of 2001, just a few months after 9/11, the American military learned that Bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora, a dense mountain range in southeastern Afghanistan Instead of sending thousands of American soldiers to go into the mountain range to capture or kill Bin Laden, Bush did not send one single American soldier One of the warlords, in disbelief and frustration told the assembled press who had converged on Tora Bora: "If America wants to capture Osama, why aren't they trying?" A top aide to [the warlord fighting al-Qaeda] said: "I don't think the United States wants to capture Osama. We know where he is, we tell them and they do nothing. So they are not as serious as they say they are."