Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins

[MechAg94]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080919/ap_on_el_st_lo/prosecuting_bush

Some people just won't let it go.  Do any of our New England members know if this person is likely to get elected?

BURLINGTON, Vt. - Lots of political candidates make campaign promises. But not like Charlotte Dennett's.
ADVERTISEMENT

Dennett, 61, the Progressive Party's candidate for Vermont Attorney General, said Thursday she will prosecute President Bush for murder if she's elected Nov. 4.

Dennett, an attorney and investigative journalist, says Bush must be held accountable for the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq  U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. She believes the Vermont attorney general would have jurisdiction to do so.

She also said she would appoint a special prosecutor and already knows who that should be: former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, the author of "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," a new book.

"Someone has to step forward," said Dennett, flanked by Bugliosi at a news conference announcing her plan. "Someone has to say we cannot put up with this lack of accountability any more."

Dennett and two others are challenging incumbent Attorney General William Sorrell, a Democrat, in the Nov. 4 election.

Bugliosi, 74, who gained fame as the prosecutor of killer Charles Manson, said any state attorney general would have jurisdiction since Bush committed "overt acts" including the military's recruitment of soldiers in Vermont and allegedly lying about the threat posed by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in speeches that were aired in Vermont and elsewhere.

"No man, even the president of the United States, is above the law," said Bugliosi.

The White House press office didn't respond to a request for comment Thursday. But Republican National Committee spokesman Blair Latoff denounced Dennett.

"It's extremely disappointing that a candidate for state attorney general is more concerned with radical left-wing provocation than upholding the law of Vermont," Latoff said. "These incendiary suggestions may score points among the most fringe elements of American society, but can't be settling for anyone looking for an attorney general."

Anti-Bush sentiment runs deep in Vermont. It's the only state Bush hasn't visited as president, and one whose liberal tendencies make it unlikely he will.

In 2007, the state Senate adopted a resolution calling for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Last March, the towns of Brattleboro and Marlboro voted to seek indictments against Bush and Cheney over the war, and dozens of other towns voted at town meetings to call for his impeachment.

Sorrell, who is seeking a sixth term, said he doesn't believe a Vermont attorney general would have the authority to charge Bush.

"The reality is, in my view, that unless the crime takes place in Vermont, then I as the attorney general have no authority under Vermont law to be prosecuting the president," Sorrell said.

[209]

I don't know if she can win or not.  You can never tell about VT.  It's a strange state and very liberal in a lot of ways.  Not that most of New England isn't. 

[MechAg94]

I heard the guy who wrote that book interviewed in Medved's show the other day.  It seemed a bit weird to me because he didn't really answer about why a former President would be held liable for Presidential decisions when he wasn't impeached.  He came across as an aggressive prosecutor who was ordered to go after someone and was looking for any avenue by which to do it.  Medved asked him what his best key evidence was and he trotted out quotes from a couple of old speeches by Bush that supposedly contradict his reasons for going to war.  So his best evidence was that Bush contradicted himself between speeches months apart and that was solid "proof" that he was lying.  I am sure there is more to it, but he didn't say much. 

[Manedwolf]

Anti-Bush sentiment runs deep in Vermont Brat-boro.

[RevDisk]

Some people just won't let it go.  Do any of our New England members know if this person is likely to get elected?

Not a big chance.  But VT also elected a self-proclaimed Socialist to the Senate. 

[HankB]

Another attempt by the Left to criminalize politics they don't agree with.

This sort of thing - criminalizing politics - was a contributor to the decline and fall of the Roman republic.

[K Frame]

Tilting at windmills in order to attempt to curry votes with the more liberal mindset.

I doubt if there's a Federal court in the land that would uphold a state arrest warrant of this kind.

So, I think we'll just file this under "Blustery Idiot."

[Perd Hapley]

So, I think we'll just file this under "Blustery Idiot." 

Oh no you don't.  We booted her out of the club a long time ago.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

bugliosi doesn't get much fame any more he misses it  is grasping

[Balog]

I would pay money to see someone try to take the President into custody. The Secret Service would love that. 

[MechAg94]

Well, I seriously doubt Texas DPS would follow an extradition order much less allow anyone else to do so.  Considering how unhinged some of the lefties have gotten, I wouldn't put kidnapping past them.  Some of them seem to think anything is justified for their cause.

[MrRezister]

I wonder if she'll pursue similar charges against everyone in the senate who authorized the use of force in Iraq?

[taurusowner]

Only if they're (R).  Remember, all the Dems who voted for the war got duped by Bush and his evil genius.  And all the Republicans who voted for the war are total blubbering morons just like that hayseed Bush.

[MrRezister]

I guess I'd feel pretty demoralized and desperate too, if I was constantly getting outmanuvered and outwitted by total idiots.... 

[French G.]

I think we should all go vote for her. Surely as progressive as VT is they don't require ID at the polls right? She needs to be elected, these people should be given national TV airtime so their ilk can be laughed out of all aspects of public life.

[Matthew Carberry]

Another attempt by the Left to criminalize politics they don't agree with.

This sort of thing - criminalizing politics - was a contributor to the decline and fall of the Roman republic.

Exactly, if folks think the desperate attempts to retain power are bad now, imagine if you could go to prison simply for losing a race and becoming vulnerable to misuse of the courts.

"'insert title' for Life" anyone?

[De Selby]

Another attempt by the Left to criminalize politics they don't agree with.

This sort of thing - criminalizing politics - was a contributor to the decline and fall of the Roman republic.

Of course the right has never done that-all those anti-communist witch hunts were conducted by flaming leftists, and all the calls to "throw all the america haters in guantanamo" or to try the New York times for treason come from Naderites.

Illegal warfare is a serious matter, and it has been considered criminal in every western legal system for a good 500 years at minimum. 

The political dimension here is more of identity than of substance as it pertains to the proposed prosecution-people who self identify as liberal are far more likely to see the war on Iraq as an illegal one than people who identify as conservative.

But certainly right wing elements accept the idea of criminalizing warfare-look at what they were saying when Saddam was hung, and look at what they are calling for with respect to the terror supporting states.

[Matthew Carberry]

shootin,

That's not an "apples to apples", and criminalizing politics (not warfare) is wrong no matter who does it.

What the VT prosecutor is talking about is charging Bush, not for his command decisions during the war, but for her view of his decision-making process leading up to it.

War crimes under international law cover actions taken during a war, they don't weigh in on the rational involved in making the decision to go to war.

By definition, the war was legitimate (setting aside subjective right and wrong) as it was voted on in Congress and was justified under any number of violated UN resolutions, acknowledged at the time by the Security Council, completely separate from the claimed connections to 9/11 or fears of WMD.

The only people who can legitimately protest about any claimed lies in getting their authorization is Congress itself via the impeachment process, or teh Security Council under theirs, both of which have declined to do so.

So, we aren't talking about criminalizing warfare, but rather criminalizing decisions the political opposition disagrees with, after they come into power, after a legal handover of said power.

That cannot happen and preserve the Republic.

[MicroBalrog]

War crimes under international law cover actions taken during a war, they don't weigh in on the rational involved in making the decision to go to war.

Actually, planning or starting a war of aggression is a war crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_peace

[De Selby]

By definition, the war was legitimate (setting aside subjective right and wrong) as it was voted on in Congress and was justified under any number of violated UN resolutions, acknowledged at the time by the Security Council, completely separate from the claimed connections to 9/11 or fears of WMD.

That is a summary of the Government's legal argument in favor of the war, but it is a hotly disputed interpretation.  Most commentators previous to this war had maintained that the Security Council was the only actor that could a) Determine with finality that a SC resolution had been violated and b) Authorize force on the basis of a SC resolution.  Added to that, there were the basic UN principles regarding the threat or use of force, so it was even arguable that the Security Council could legally sanction a war without there being some act of war, even if the target nation were violating Security Council resolutions.

The claims of lies would not be terribly relevant to a prosecution under that theory; rather, the claimed facts (irrespective of the representations to the public) that Iraq did not attack the US and was not in a position to imminently attack it, and that the President prosecuted a war in the absence of Security Council authorization, would serve as the basis for a charge of "war of aggression"....as Micro cited above.

[tokugawa]

I have never heard of a war of non -aggression. Seems like they all involve a lot of aggression.

[De Selby]

I have never heard of a war of non -aggression. Seems like they all involve a lot of aggression.

It means "not in self defense."

[Matthew Carberry]

Did the UN or Security Council (the only ones with standing to determine the US acted improperly in re SC resolutions) act on any claim of illegitimacy of enforcement of their decisions?  If not, then there is no standing for anyone else to.

In any event, that is irrelevent to the larger domestic issue of, absent Congress indicting the President for a crime, we cannot allow a party taking power to post facto declare any conduct by a previous administration criminal.  However good the intentions, to do so will inevitably lead to parties refusing to give up power in fear of becoming vulnerable to sanctions.

When treason, and thus death, is on the line, they will kill to retain power and be fools not to.

If you want your government to find a current administration's actions criminal, they need to do it at the time and through existing channels, not via some jumped up local contrarian taking non-existant powers into their own hands after the fact.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I have never heard of a war of non -aggression. Seems like they all involve a lot of aggression.

It means "not in self defense."

shoot the thinking amongst the japanese leadership was that pearl harbor was "self defence"

[MicroBalrog]

I have never heard of a war of non -aggression. Seems like they all involve a lot of aggression.

It means "not in self defense."

shoot the thinking amongst the japanese leadership was that pearl harbor was "self defence"

I'd like you to provide a source for that claim.