The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder起訴布什謀殺案
By Vincent Bugliosi | With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political.由文森特布廖西|與尊重的立場，我是否有關的罪行，布什，我想國家在開始時，我的動機是不是政治。 Although I’ve been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for “the little guy”), my political orientation is not rigid.雖然我已經長期民主黨（主要是因為，除非有一些非常令人信服的理由，否則，我始終為“小人物” ） ，我國的政治方向，是不嚴格。 For instance, I supported John McCain’s run for the presidency in 2000.舉例來說，我支持麥凱恩的競選總統在2000年。 More to the point, whether I’m giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me.更多一點，無論我作最後的總結，向陪審團或寫作我的一個真實犯罪的書籍，信譽一向意味著一切給我。 Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity.因此，我唯一的碩士和我唯一的情婦都是事實性和客觀性。 I have no others.我沒有其他人。 This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read.Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns.這就是為什麼我可以給你，讀者，百分之百的保證，如果民主黨總統做了什麼，布什，我會以書面形式相同，相同的作品您即將read.perhaps最了不起的事，向我有關的信念，很多人說謊，布什向美國民眾在開始他的伊拉克戰爭是自由專欄作家，誰曾指責他這樣做的，只是這一點，然後去上下段在其列。 Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached.只有很少是否專欄作家補充一點，就是因為它布什應該被彈劾。 If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office.如果收費是真的話，當然，布什應該已經被彈劾，被定罪，並免職。 That’s almost too self-evident to state.這幾乎太不言自明的國家。 But he deserves much more than impeachment.但他不愧遠不止彈劾。 I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up.我的意思是，在美國，我們顯然彈劾總統後，協商一致的性別以外的婚姻和試圖掩蓋起來。 If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe.如果我們彈劾總統，那麼，如果總統把國家的戰爭謊言數千名美軍士兵死亡的可怕，暴力死亡和超過十萬無辜的伊拉克平民，包括婦女和兒童，甚至嬰兒被殺害，處罰顯然有要得多，嚴重得多。 That’s just common sense.這只是普通常識。 If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he’d still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful.如果布什總統被彈劾，定罪，在參議院，並解除了職務，他要仍是一個自由的人，仍然能夠醒來是在早上與他的一杯咖啡和新鮮擠出橙汁，並宣讀了上午的文件，仍旅行廣泛，並導致生命的特權，仍然屬於他的鄉村俱樂部和獲得常委會ovations時，他選擇了發言，共和黨的忠實。 This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did.這一點，被負責超過十萬可怕的死亡？ *有興趣的人士在真正的正義，彈劾案，僅會是一個笑話什麼，布什。
Let’s look at the way some of the leading liberal lights (and, of course, the rest of the entire nation with the exception of those few recommending impeachment) have treated the issue of punishment for Bush’s cardinal sins. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about “the false selling of the Iraq War.讓我們看看方式一些領導自由燈（和，當然，其餘的全民族的與除少數建議彈劾）對待的問題，處罰對布什的樞機主教的罪過。 紐約時報專欄作家保羅克魯格曼寫的“虛假銷售的伊拉克戰爭。 We were railroaded into an unnecessary war.” Fine, I agree.我們railroaded成為一個不必要的戰爭“ 。罰款，我同意。 Now what?現在該怎麼做？ Krugman just goes on to the next paragraph.克魯格曼剛下去，到下一個段落。 But if Bush falsely railroaded the nation into a war where over 100,000 people died, including 4,000 American soldiers, how can you go on to the next paragraph as if you had been writing that Bush spent the weekend at Camp David with his wife?但如果布什附有虛假產地來源標籤railroaded國家進入戰爭，超過十萬人死亡，其中包括4000名美軍士兵，你如何能下去，到下一個段落，作為如果您已以書面形式，布什花了上週末在戴維營與他的妻子？ For doing what Krugman believes Bush did, doesn’t Bush have to be punished commensurately in some way?這樣做有什麼克魯格曼認為，布什並沒有布什要受到懲罰， commensurately以某種方式呢？ Are there no consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions?有沒有後果犯下的罪行龐大的比例？
Al Franken, on the “David Letterman” show, said, “Bush lied to us to take us to war” and quickly went on to another subject, as if he was saying “Bush lied to us in his budget.”基地弗蘭肯，對“大衛賴特曼”顯示，說： “布什，向我們撒謊，以把我們帶到戰爭” ，並迅速到對另一個問題，正如如果他說： “布什，向我們撒謊在他的預算案” 。
Sen. Edward Kennedy, condemning Bush, said that “Bush’s distortions misled Congress in its war vote” and “No president of the United States should employ distortion of truth to take the nation to war.” But, Senator Kennedy, if a president does this, as you believe Bush did, then what?參議員愛德華肯尼迪，譴責布什說， “布什的扭曲，誤導國會在其戰爭投票”和“沒有美國總統必須聘請歪曲真相，採取民族戰爭” 。不過，參議員肯尼迪，如果一個總統是否這方面，正如您認為布什沒有，那麼是什麼呢？ Remember, Clinton was impeached for allegedly trying to cover up a consensual sexual affair.請記住，克林頓被彈劾，據稱試圖掩蓋一個協商一致的性事。 What do you recommend for Bush for being responsible for more than 100,000 deaths?你有什麼建議，為布什負責以上十萬人死亡？ Nothing?什麼？ He shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions?他不應該被追究責任，為他的行動呢？ If one were to listen to you talk, that is the only conclusion one could come to.如果一個人聽您講話，這是唯一的結論之一，可以來。 But why, Senator Kennedy, do you, like everyone else, want to give Bush this complete free ride?但為什麼，參議員肯尼迪，你，和其他人一樣，不想給布什，這完全免費乘坐呢？
The New York Times , in a June 17, 2004, editorial, said that in selling this nation on the war in Iraq, “the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11 … inexcusably selling the false Iraq-Al Qaeda claim to Americans.” But gentlemen, if this is so, then what? 新的紐約時報 ，在一個2004年6月17日，社論說，在出售這個國家的對伊拉克戰爭， “布什政府深信，相當多數美國人在戰爭之前，薩達姆侯賽因是有點聯繫，以9 / 11 … inexcusably出售虛假伊拉克-蓋達組織聲稱美國人“ ，但，先生們，如果是這樣，那麼是什麼呢？ The New York Times didn’t say, just going on, like everyone else, to the next paragraph, talking about something else. 新的紐約時報並沒有說，剛才的事情，和其他人一樣，到下段，談到另一回事。
In a Nov. 15, 2005, editorial, the New York Times said that “the president and his top advisers … did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own.在一個2005年11月15日，社論說， 新的紐約時報說： “總統和他的高級顧問…不容許美國人民，或什至國會，擁有必要的信息以作出理性的判斷，他們自己的。 It’s obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein’s weapons and his terrorist connections.” But if it’s “obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans” in taking them to a war that tens of thousands of people have paid for with their lives, now what?很顯然，布什政府誤導美國人約侯賽因先生的武器和他的恐怖連線“ ，但如果它的”顯而易見，布什政府誤導美國人“在考慮他們的戰爭，數以萬計的人有支付與他們的生活，現在該怎麼做？ No punishment?沒有懲罰？ If not, under what theory?如果沒有，根據什麼理論呢？ Again, you’re just going to go on to the next paragraph?再次，您剛要下去，到下段？
I’m not going to go on to the next unrelated paragraph.我不想去上下一無關的段落。
In early December of 2005, a New York Times-CBS nationwide poll showed that the majority of Americans believed Bush “intentionally misled” the nation to promote a war in Iraq.在十二月初的2005年，一個新的紐約時報-哥倫比亞廣播公司在全國范圍內民調顯示，多數美國人認為布什“故意誤導”國家推動在伊拉克的戰爭。 A Dec. 11, 2005, article in the Los Angeles Times , after citing this national poll, went on to say that because so many Americans believed this, it might be difficult for Bush to get the continuing support of Americans for the war. 1 2005年12月11日，文章在洛杉磯時報後，這個國家的調查中，接著說，因為有很多美國人認為，這一點，可能會有困難，布什得到繼續支持的美國人為戰爭。 In other words, the fact that most Americans believed Bush had deliberately misled them into war was of no consequence in and of itself.在其他的話，事實上，大多數美國人認為，布什故意誤導他們陷入戰爭是沒有後果，並且其本身。 Its only consequence was that it might hurt his efforts to get support for the war thereafter.其唯一的後果是，它可能會傷害他的努力獲得對伊拉克戰爭的支持。 So the article was reporting on the effect of the poll findings as if it was reporting on the popularity, or lack thereof, of Bush’s position on global warming or immigration.因此，這篇文章的報告的影響，調查結果如果是關於報告的人氣，或缺乏，布什的立場，對全球變暖或入境。 Didn’t the author of the article know that Bush taking the nation to war on a lie (if such be the case) is the equivalent of saying he is responsible for well over 100,000 deaths?沒有文章作者都知道，布什以民族戰爭的謊言（如果這種可能的情況） ，是相當於說，他是負責，以及超過十萬人死亡？ One would never know this by reading the article.一，將永遠都不會知道這一點，讀的文章。
If Bush, in fact, intentionally misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him?如果布什，事實上，是否有意在誤導這個國家陷入戰爭，什麼是適當的處罰他？ Since many Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only one person, if we weren’t speaking of the president of the United States as the defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous.** But we are dealing with the president of the United States here.由於許多美國人經常要刑事被告被處決謀殺只有一人，如果我們不說的是美國總統作為被告在這裡，討論任何少於死刑，有人負責超過十萬死亡就其面對的似乎是可笑的** ，但我們正在處理與美國總統在這裡。
On the other hand, the intensity of rage against Bush in America has been such (it never came remotely this close with Clinton because, at bottom, there was nothing of any real substance to have any serious rage against him for) that if I heard it once I heard it 10 times that “someone should put a bullet in his head.” That, fortunately, is just loose talk, and even more fortunately not the way we do things in America.在另一方面，強度憤怒，對布什在美國已如（它從來沒有來遠程關閉，這與克林頓，因為在底部，有沒有任何實質有任何嚴重的憤怒，對他）說，如果我沒有聽錯這一次，我聽到它的10倍， “有人要把子彈在他的頭部。 ” ，所幸的是，只是鬆散的對話，更幸運的不是這樣，我們的事在美國。 In any event, if an American jury were to find Bush guilty of first-degree murder, it would be up to them to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, one of their options being the imposition of the death penalty.在任何情況下，如果一個美國陪審團是要找出布什承認第一一級謀殺罪，便要由他們去決定什麼適當的處罰，應之一，他們的選擇被判處死刑。
Although I have never heard before what I am suggesting — that Bush be prosecuted for murder in an American courtroom — many have argued that “Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes” (mostly for the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.雖然我從來沒有聽過之前，我的建議-布什被起訴謀殺案，案中一名美國法庭-很多人認為，“布什應該被起訴戰爭罪” （大多為酷刑的囚犯在阿布格萊布和關塔那摩）在國際刑事法院在荷蘭海牙。 But for all intents and purposes this cannot be done.但對於所有意圖和目的，這不能這樣做。
*Even assuming, at this point, that Bush is criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in the Iraq war, under federal law he could only be prosecuted for the deaths of the 4,000 American soldiers killed in the war. *即使假定，在這一點上，布什是刑事責任的死亡負有責任超過十萬人在伊拉克戰爭中，按照美國聯邦法律，他只可被檢控，為死亡的4000名美軍士兵死亡，在戰爭中。 No American court would have jurisdiction to prosecute him for the one hundred and some thousand Iraqi deaths since these victims not only were not Americans, but they were killed in a foreign nation, Iraq. 沒有美國的法院擁有司法管轄權，起訴他為100和一些伊拉克數千人死亡以來，這些受害者不僅沒有美國人，但他們被殺害，在外國的國家，伊拉克。 Despite their nationality, if they had been killed here in the States, there would of course be jurisdiction. 儘管他們的國籍，如果他們已被殺害在這裡，在美國，將有當然的管轄權。
**Indeed, Bush himself, ironically, would be the last person who would quarrel with the proposition that being guilty of mass murder (even one murder, by his lights) calls for the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment. **事實上，布什本人，但諷刺的是，將過去的人會吵架，誰與命題，即犯有大規模謀殺（甚至一謀殺，他的燈）呼籲為死刑作為反對判處終身監禁。 As governor of Texas, Bush had the highest execution rate of any governor in American history: He was a very strong proponent of the death penalty who even laughingly mocked a condemned young woman who begged him to spare her life (”Please don’t kill me,” Bush mimicked her in a magazine interview with journalist Tucker Carlson), and even refused to commute the sentence of death down to life imprisonment for a young man who was mentally retarded (although as president he set aside the entire prison sentence of his friend Lewis “Scooter” Libby), and had a broad smile on his face when he announced in his second presidential debate with Al Gore that his state, Texas, was about to execute three convicted murderers.作為總督的得克薩斯州，布什的最高執行率的任何總督在美國歷史上：他是一個非常強烈主張死刑誰，甚至笑著嘲笑一年輕女子譴責誰，乞求他備件她的生命（ “請不要殺我， “布什模擬，她在一本雜誌採訪時問塔克卡爾森） ，甚至拒絕通勤該判處死刑到無期徒刑，一青年男子誰是弱智（雖然作為總統，他撥出整個監獄服刑的他劉易斯的朋友“踏板車”利比） ，並進行了廣泛的微笑，對他的臉，當他宣布在他的第二次總統辯論中與戈爾說，他的國家，德克薩斯州，大約是執行三個被定罪的殺人犯。
In Bush’s two terms as Texas governor, he signed death warrants for an incredible 152 out of 153 executions against convicted murderers, the majority of whom killed one person.在布什的兩個名詞，作為德克薩斯州州長，他簽署死刑令，令人難以置信的152出153處決對被定罪的殺人犯，其中大部分是造成一人死亡。 The only death sentence Bush commuted was for one of the many murders that mass murderer Henry Lucas had been convicted of.唯一死刑，布什commuted是其中的許多謀殺案的兇手大規模亨利盧卡斯已被定罪的。 Bush was informed that Lucas had falsely confessed to this particular murder and was innocent, his conviction being improper.布什獲悉，盧卡斯曾附有虛假產地來源標籤供認，這特別是謀殺和是無辜的，他被定罪不當。 So in 152 out of 152 cases, Bush refused to show mercy even once, finding that not one of the 152 convicted killers should receive life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.因此，在152 152例，布什拒絕開恩，甚至有一次，發現沒有一個被定罪的152殺手應接受終身監禁而不是死刑。 Bush’s perfect 100 percent execution rate is highly uncommon even for the most conservative law-and-order governors.布什的完善百分之百的執行率是非常罕見的，即使最保守的法律和秩序的省長。
See More: 看到更多的： Bush 布什 USA News 美國新聞 Warfare 戰Have Your Say: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder 你說：起訴布什謀殺案
Please note, only selected comments will be published.請注意，只有選定的評論將出版。
Or discuss this report in our our new forums 或討論這個報告在我們的我們的新論壇
One Response to “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” 1回應“起訴布什謀殺”
Daphne 達芙妮
Posted: May 25th, 2008 at 10:43 pm | 發布時間： 2008年5月25日在下午10時43分| Link to this 鏈接到本
Free Newsletter 免費通訊 
Related News 相關新聞
- Only 3% of Americans support sending more troops to Iraq只有3 ％的美國人支持派遣更多部隊到伊拉克
- Mr Bush, Mandela is still alive布什，曼德拉仍然活著。
- Chavez: Bush, genocidal terrorist查韋斯：布什，種族滅絕的恐怖
- Poll: Americans losing trust in Bush民調：美國人失去的信任布什
- Bush hits new approval rating low布什訪問新批准的評價低
Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友
Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
- Students Denied Legal Aid學生否認法律援助
- Over 60% of People Do Not Trust the Government超過60 ％的人不信任政府
- Lorry drivers to shut down London roads in protest貨車司機關閉倫敦的道路抗議
- Tories pledge to curb use of CCTV cameras保守黨承諾，以遏止利用閉路電視攝影機
- Path Intelligence - Phorm for shopping centres?路徑情報-p horm商場？
- Concerns grow over snooping watchdog關注成長超過窺探看門狗
- ‘We Are Stuck’ With Guantanamo, Gates Says '我們堅持'與關塔那摩時，蓋茨說
- Indictment and Trial of Bush and Cheney起訴和審判布什和切尼
- The War on Drugs - ‘30 Years of Failure’戰爭的藥物-' 30年失敗的'
- Indymedia Responds to SHIfT article indymedia回應轉移文章
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞
Archive 存檔
We must hold the fire to the feet of congress, especially我們必須持有消防向英尺的國會，特別是
the speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Conyers and our議長佩洛西，里德，約翰科尼爾斯和我們
personal representatives.個人代表。 They must not continue their他們絕不能繼續他們的
madness carte blanche.瘋狂單全權。 This is Aldous Huxley/George Orwell nightmare, “live and in living color”.這是aldous赫胥黎/喬治奧維爾的惡夢， “居住和生活的顏色” 。 The neocons have該新保守主義者有
successful dumbed down enough of us to keep their strategy成功dumbed下來夠了我們繼續他們的策略
going.流行的。 We must keep writing and talking, educating friends,我們必須保持寫作和交談，教育的朋友，
family and neighbors so that WE MAY BE ABLE TO STOP THE家人和鄰居，好讓我們可以停止
MADNESS BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.瘋狂之前，這是為時已晚。 Not only our reputation不僅我們的聲譽，
and the lives of countless young American men and women,和生命的無數年輕的美國男子和婦女，
but also the lives of innocent Iraqi and Iranian men,而且還無辜者的生命，伊拉克和伊朗的男子，
women and chldren are also at stake every moment that we婦女和chldren也攸關的每一刻，我們
delay.延遲。