Villain

by Lynda Kohn

Created on: December 08, 2010   Last Updated: December 09, 2010

Bush Villain

With apologies to Robert Browning's poem "How much do I love thee.  Let me count the ways." How much did I hate the W. Bush administration.  Let me count the ways. They are three to be exact and they are as follows: Iraq war,  Draconian US budget cuts to services to the most vulnerable and I consider the worst, the most important and disastrous, the elimination of judicial and other rights.
 
Specifically The act of declaring war on a nation irrelevant to 911, Bin Ladin was the height of irriseponsible recklessness.  It literally cost tens of thousands of innocent US lives.  Plus it cut short countless Iraqi lives.  There was the horrific behaviors of some military people at Abu Ghraib prison.  Plus indirectly it caused the beheadings of innocent victims. If there wasn't a war in Iraq I doubt there would be anybody beheaded.  Lastly the funding going into this never justified, totally uncalled for war could have gone to much needed social services.  Instead the money was squandered on fighting that was a total waste of funding and time.  
 
Consider this concerning Bush's Iraq war declared October 2001.  There was never any evidence connecting Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein nor were there found any uranium mines.  Neither was there any proof Hussein or any Iraqi was involved in 9/11/01.  British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) declared the Bush Iraq war totally unjustified.  This statement was in BBC Middle East statement April 15, 2003.  Sir Joseph Rotblatt UK Nuclear scientist, receiver of the Nobel Peace Prize said, "Saddam did possess the right to rule his nation as he pleased." The scientist basically said it was quite hypocritical of Bush to criticize Iraq with its nuclear weapons when the US has them

On Oct 19, 2006 a former Homeland Security Dept. official claimed Bush exaggerated Hussein's threat to the US.  Clark Kent Irvin was an assistant secretary of state. He was deputy attorney general for Bush when he was Texas governor.  Irvin became quite concerned when his former employer invaded Iraq.  He immediately perceived the attack as, perhaps inadvertently, as a terrific opportunity for Bin Ladin to bide his time to regroup toward the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.   The war in Iraq to Irvin was totally unnecessary and made us less safe.  It was diverting us from who we should be fighting, Al Qaeda.  Hussein never was the target.  Even former Republican president Gerald Ford believed there was no reason for this war.  

There is the argument Bush declared war on Hussein because of revenge, conquest, oil. MSNBC made a statement from the Associated Press (AP) that there were several hundred untrue statements of WMDs, Al Qaeda justifying the Iraq war.  These statements urged Americans to be enhusiastic for the war. The source: Center for Public Integrity.  The report was written by staff writers Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith.  Mark Reading-Smith holds the title of senior researcher/editor at the Fund for Independence in Journalism. Source http://pipl.com.  Charles Lewis is an investigative reporter and is one of the main founders of the Center for Public Integrity.

The exact count of erroneous citations was 935. The then vice president Dick Cheney, Social Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other important officials were cited as giving inaccurate information.  This report was reported in the New York Times and Washington Post and many other US newspapers.  The source is the Center for Public Integrity.  This is their mission statement from their web site http://www.publicintegrity.org.  The specific report can be read at http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard.  The Center for Public Integrity produces original investigations to try to make institutional power more transparent and accountable to the people.  It produces high quality reports that most anybody can access through databases, reports, etc. It is proud to be independent of any government influence and monies.

As late as 2007 Bush's Iraqi war was generally considered a disaster by the American majority. It was perceived as a "mistake dishonestly taken." My source is "Why We Are Liberals" by Eric Alterman Chapter 5 "Conservatives and the Miltary".  The writer goes on to say Bush was still claiming a relationship between the Iraq leader and Bin Ladin when it was clear there was never a correlation.

This fact that funds could be going to social programs instead of the phony war leads to two thoughts.  How much cash would have been paying for programs to help the needy vulnerable populations?  Second question.  Would Bush fund these peoples?  This, the second major negative of the dismal Bush legacy. The mean-spirited stinginess of the Bush years regarding his two terms, eight years of his presidency. Yes it was horrifically recklessness declaring a completely unjustified war, drastic budget cuts effecting the most needy.

George W. Bush's worst legacy is the elimination of our judicial rights.   America was founded on judicial rights.  If one person's judicial rights are taken away this means that everyone's could be.  The right of Habeas Corpus means that everyone in the US deserves judicial rights. More on this below.

Here is one of Bush's egregious budget cuts. May 22, 2008 The House and Senate overrode President Bush veto of the Farm Bill, a $307 billion bill providing subsidies to farmers. More than $10 billion of the funds will go to expanding nutritional programs such as food stamps. Bush originally vetoed the bill, which he felt to be excessive. Reduce government spending on the programs which underwrite the quality of life for poor and middle class Americans: food and income support for the poor, education and health care and pensions for the middle class. Thus, the massive tax cuts to the wealthy will be paid for by hacking away at, bankrupting and terminating programs that support the working people of America.
 
It may have been Operation Enduring Freedom for the Iraqis but it certainly wasn't that for Americans.  The Terrorists destroyed lives, buildings and other properties. They did not take away our freedoms.  Bush did that for us.

The US PATRIOT Act curtails freedom of speech, assembly, habeas corpus and other rights. Look at the "Real ID" cards that can let practically any govt. official find out virtually everything regarding what you do. Padilla as most people know was found guilty. However whatever the verdict was, his judicial rights should not been tampered with. Him being in jail for several years, unable to see a lawyer and other judicial rights, should never have been withheld from him. Habeas Corpus is for everyone. I write here.

Jose Padilla was accused of being a terrorist.  Specifically he was believed to be cooperating with vowed enemies of the US.  In particular Khaleed, Malech Mohammad and other top men connected to Osama Bin Ladin.  However as horrible as these accusations were, his US constitutional judicial rights were rather flagrantly disregarded when he was put in prison, indefinitely without a trial.  In fact there was no thought or plan for any judicial hearing of any kind whatsoever.  There were no official formal charges, no habeas corpus, no indictment.  In essence he was thrown into prison without the key.  Bush declared anybody for whatever reason or no reason, could be declared an enemy combatant and therefore every one of their rights lifted.

Center for Constitutional Rights and the Recent US Supreme Court-Guantanemo ruling. June 14 2008, the US Supreme Court gave the detainees at Guantanemo, Cuba Habeas Corpus. HC is basically a petition, writ to see whether or not a prisoner is justified in being imprisoned. This decision was far from a quick one. The fact is various lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights have been petitioning the US government for this very ruling since 2002. To be particular, this was Boumediene v. Bush

Background. The reality is the attorneys of CCR have been involved with the rights of Quantanemo prisoners for over five years. The first incident was in February 2002. It was the original Habeas case bought before the Bush administration by legal council from CCR. It was how the detainees were in a "legal black hole". That is the prisoners were without legal recourse to challenge US federal court to see if they were held legally. Five hundred detainees are affected.

The next two years, the right to Habeas Corpus ie, Rasul vs Bush, was sidetracked by various means by the Bush presidency. This was done by various laws ie, Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commission Act. The former act is part of the US Dept. of Defense Appropiations Act,2006. Source:Council on Foreign Relations. www.cfr.org. The 6/12/08 Supreme Court ruling overturned the part of the act that denied Habeas Corpus. On November 13, 2001 former President Bush declared an executive order to establish military commissions. With this order the chief executive ordered trials by the military commission. To see if it could be determined by the president reason to believe a detainee is or was an Al Qaeda member or engaged in hostilities targeting the United States.

While the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 guaranteed decent treatment of prisoners, it denied Habeas Corpus. The Gitmo prisoners were held indefinitely in legal limbo. That is they were incapable of proving their innocence. There was no recourse for them to have their day in court.

The US Constitional guarantees our rights and freedoms. This is what makes the US one of the greatest nations on earth. It was founded on rights. Even from the earliest beginnings there was the Bill of Rights for Americans.

One of the most crucial right is the right to a fair and impartial trial to prove one's guilt or non guilt. This means too the right of Habeas Corpus.
Some of these rights include the right to legal council. Another one is the right to trial by jury to determine one's guilt or non guilt. Technically speaking one can only be found guilty or not guilty. There is no such thing as being found innocent.

John McCain, Republican Candidate for president said in so many words, "this US Suprume Court ruling is one of the scariest decisions ever made by the court." I interpret what he means is disturbing, ie threatening. Krauthammer, conservative commentator disapproved of the ruling too. As did Hannity, Bill OReilly and other Fox commentators. I am certain many other conservatives disapproved too.

Personally I don't see how this ruling is frightening. Everybody is due their rights in court. Once the ruling is passed down, the inmates can go on trial. Once this happens hopefully justice will be served. My definition of justice is a person on trial gets what they deserve. If they are deserving of being punished they will be. If they are undeserving of a punishment they won't be.

Its International Law too. Its United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. Both acts were signed by the United States. November 2001, then president G.W.Bush signed into law an executive order to begin special military tribunals.  This meant any foreigner in any way, suspected of being an enemy combatant could be held for trial.   This included anybody no matter how flimsy the evidence was against that person.  Critics of this order criticized it for it lacking in even the most basic of standards of justice and fairness under the American justice system.  Words such as unprededented, unconstitutional were utilized.  There were quite a few military attorneys who were harshly critical of the tribunals.  Foreign detainees were completely denied every legal protection, no access to legal proceedings and held indefinitely without going to trial. These included rights under the Geneva convention as set by the United Nations.  

So there it is a totally unjustified war that killed thousands needlessly, cruel budget cuts to the most vulnerable and the taking away of our rights.  Rights that good men and women who were either severely injured or lost their lives.  Bush made a mockery of their contributions to our freedoms.

Learn more about this author, Lynda Kohn.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.