The Bush Crime Wave

The Bush Crime Wave

By Ted Lang
Exclusive to Rense.com
© 2004-2006 All Rights Reservered
9-10-6

Many alternative media writers whose patriotic base is founded on truth, fact and the nation's rule of law, have long identified the Bush administration as the "Bush regime." The implication is clear: the Bush regime operates totally outside the law. The practice of torturing defenseless detainees that have not been adjudicated as being either criminals or prisoners of war, or even proven as terrorists, but merely categorized as potential enemies of the American state by decree rather than trial by jury, is not only totally foreign to the national character of the American people, but totally violates the law of our land. Considering the horrific and deliberate deviation from what has always distinguished the American people as a nation wholly dependent on the equity and justice that is so central to our rule of law, the activities of the Bush regime regarding the so-called "war on terror" demonstrates the total absence of even a modicum of collective morality on the part of the Bush rank and file. This "administration" is indeed now unequivocally definable as a criminal regime.

A fissure in the wall of "creative law" hyped by the Bush criminals and established by then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales in his infamous torture memo, the latter attempting to legitimize Bush's unilateral termination of long-standing international agreements and the Geneva Convention, is now beginning to appear. It is important, once again, to reiterate my firm belief that President Bush is not endowed with even a semblance of the intellect required to comprehend the creative legalese of Gonzales' regulatory sorcery. But, short of Bush being declared mentally incompetent, Bush must be held personally accountable for his "administration" and made to face responsibility as its head.

In their article written for The Nation, Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith write: "The US War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a felony to commit grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Washington Post recently reported that the Bush administration is quietly circulating draft legislation to eliminate crucial parts of the War Crimes Act. Observers on The Hill say the Administration plans to slip it through Congress this fall while there still is a guaranteed Republican majority - perhaps as part of the military appropriations bill, the proposals for Guantánamo tribunals or a new catch-all 'anti-terrorism' package. Why are they doing it, and how can they be stopped?"

Once again, the criminal Bush administration is operating in secret, and will be furiously protected by the Zionist-Marxist media mafia that favors the Bush policies that advance the imperial desires of Israel in the Mid-East. And although Brecher and Smith, in their September 5th
article entitled, "Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act," offers the same tired old remedy of "contacting our representatives in Washington," their detailed analysis is frustrated by their hopeful outlook dependent upon the integrity, morality and honesty on the part of the members of our so-called United States Congress. When has our Congress ever demonstrated in our lifetime their devotion to America's rule of law?

Ours is a failed republic, made so by a dependency on a rule of law that has been, and continues to be, totally ignored. The Constitution of the United States has been quietly abolished by our now secret government. Even the Founders acknowledged that without government officials and representatives imbued with a sense of decency and morality that serve our nation based on a strict code of personal ethics, both the nation and its constitution will be lost. And both have been!

The foundation of American government today is cold, hard cash. And that's all there is. AIPAC has purchased our elected politicians, who even now are more correctly defined as "elected criminals," considering their campaign finance rules that protect incumbents and their selling out to the highest bidder. Israel receives $3 to 5 billion annually from American taxpayers, and then funnels their non-earned booty right back to their Israel Lobby, AIPAC, in Washington, which then contributes heavily to the campaigns of our elected politicians who aggressively represent and protect Israel and certainly not US. And the Bush regime has served Israel more than any other "American" administration in history. Where is there any modicum of reciprocity that can be judged as any real benefit to US? The only ones benefiting from this spurious arrangement are the international corporate oil conglomerates and the fascist military industrial complex. Bush's loyalty to globalism, however, as evidenced by his feverish desire to dissolve our borders, legalize illegal aliens, and export all middle-class employment overseas, is more characteristic of the agenda of international communism. Bush and his regime display no loyalty whatsoever to our national sovereignty; even Hitler couldn't be accused of that.

Isn't it curious, how detention centers, detainee torture, carpet-bombing of unarmed citizenry with internationally-banned napalm and white phosphorous, and other acts of genocide and mass murder that totally disregard international standards of military conflict were employed by our own forces immediately upon the formulation of our Mid-Eastern policy under Israeli tutelage and leadership? As Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their now famous Harvard research paper, "The Israel Lobby," have stated, "The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides." As stated: this alliance is a one-way street benefiting only Israel. The "strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives" do not, of course, exist. It's the cash, stupid!

The undue allegiance to, and reverence for, the "security" of Israel explains the suicidal stampede on the part of the Bush regime to rush to war with Iraq, thereby inviting legally sloppy, glaring mistakes after the blessings of 9/11. Pulling off this major massacre of Americans by elements of the criminal Bush regime is what has enabled the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan and now Lebanon, and will be used again to further justify, in the deranged criminal minds of Bush's neocon handlers, the "need" to attack Syria and Iran. All will be perpetrated in accordance with the plan for an invincible Israel in the Mid East to control the bulk of the world's oil supply.

And only now is The New York Times on board as evidenced by its September 8th
article, "C.I.A. Said to Find No Hussein Link to Terror Chief," authored by Mark Mazzetti. Murray Waas of National Review first broke this story in November, 2005. The Zionist-Marxists at the Times took almost a year to report it; can we expect to see something yet on the "Downing Street Memo?" Nah!

Yet, in his exclusive article which Waas published on November 22, 2005, entitled, "There Was No 9-11 ­ Iraq Connection," Waas opens with, "Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter." And a later article by investigative reporter Waas detailed how Bush decided to ignore the advice of the CIA to NOT go ahead with his fraudulent SOTA proclaiming British intelligence had uncovered Saddam's plot to obtain Niger "yellowcake." No wonder there's been a falling out between the regime and the "new" CIA! But I have digressed.

Based upon the national character of the Jewish state, let's quickly lose the illusion that our "friends" in Tel-Aviv will get our oil to US for "wholesale." The only hope for a political solution to America's problem will be the exercise of both legal restraints upon the Bush crime machine, as well as the enforcement of penalties for the heinous war crimes against humanity by Bush and Israel. The USA PATRIOT Act will take care of resistance on the part of the treasonous American people, all of whom are guilty of terrorism until tortured and proven innocent. And now they've got "pretty, perky" Katie Couric to ease our fall from individual freedom to the slavery and misery of the gulag. Doesn't it astonish that right-wing fascist Rush
Limbaugh teamed up with the "pretty perky" one thereby joining the "liberal" press in their monumental support and protection of the Bush crime machine?

It is for this reason that the War Crimes Act must be quickly and secretly rescinded. And never mind about that "godammed piece of paper" that bans bills of attainder and ex post facto laws; who cares about that outdated piece of crap anyway? Brecher and Smith elaborate giving some background on the War Crimes Act: "American prohibitions on abuse of prisoners go back to the Lieber Code promulgated by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. The first international Geneva Convention dates from the following year. After World War II, international law protecting prisoners of war and all noncombatants was codified in the Geneva Conventions. They were ratified by the US Senate and, under Article II of the Constitution, they thereby became the law of the land."

Brecher and Smith continue: "Wishing to rebuke the unpunished war crimes of dictators like Saddam Hussein, in 1996 a Republican-dominated Congress passed the War Crimes Act without a dissenting vote. It defined a 'war crime' as any 'grave breach' of the Geneva Conventions. It thereby advanced a global trend of mutual reinforcement between national and international law. The War Crimes Act was little noticed until the disclosure of Alberto Gonzales's infamous 2002 'torture memo.' Gonzales, then serving as presidential counsel, advised President Bush to declare that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to people the United States captured in Afghanistan. That, Gonzales wrote, 'substantially reduced the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act.'"

Preceding this now-established fact proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that the criminal Bush regime is guilty of international war crimes, "A federal judge in Detroit ruled ... that the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional, delivering the first decision that the Bush administration's effort to monitor communications without court oversight runs afoul of the Bill of Rights and federal law," reported Dan Eggen and Dafna Linzer in their August 18th article, "Judge Rules Against Wiretaps" in the Washington Post.

Eggen and Linzer continue: "U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered a halt to the wiretap program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2001, but both sides in the lawsuit agreed to delay that action until a Sept. 7 hearing. Legal scholars said Taylor's decision is likely to receive heavy scrutiny from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit when the Justice Department appeals, and some criticized her ruling as poorly reasoned." But who really cares about her "reasoning?" The question should be easy to assess: did the Bush regime break the law, or didn't it? The answer is obvious.

Again, reflect upon how a criminal, secret regime such as this ignores and abuses our nation's rule of law. Reflect also upon how this regime has used our military to illegally invade a country and to mass murder innocent and unarmed non-combatant citizens, and how our military has also been encouraged and even directed to torture not only captured individuals held in illegal captivity, but also randomly kidnapped individuals snatched simply to be tortured to "see if they know anything." Could "people" such as these plan and perpetrate 9/11, and mass murder their own citizens to launch their reign of terror via a "war on terror"? Am I required to answer this for you?

Now can you just imagine how easily this country could be saved by the mere existence of a free and independent press? Take a look at the anger in the video clip of CNN's Jack Cafferty on the "Cafferty File". Wouldn't it be great if Bush crime machine sycophants such as Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity and Drudge decided that their country was more important than Israel and the New World Order? But you see, such brilliant fellows simply "don't believe in conspiracy theories," so they won't even examine the basic scientific premises expounded upon logically and thoroughly by the 9/11 truth movement and the growing army of scholars, engineers and former government bureaucrats and high-ranking military officers.

Apparently, once again, it's the cash stupid. They simply can't afford to lose all that money by "going straight" and coming clean; never mind that the greatest bastion of individual human freedom will be sacrificed so that they can hold on to their wealth and lifestyles. Cafferty, Olbermann, Dobbs and others are trying, but their jobs are also dependent on the Jewish media mafia that dominates them as much as they do Charlie Sheen and Ed Asner. Remember how quickly after denouncing the Bush regime's 9/11 crimes Sheen's divorce particulars were aired to shut him up? Remember how they nixed Asner's scheduled appearance on CNN?

We need "hate crimes" legislation, but not laws directed at "anti-Semites." We need laws directed squarely at "pro-Semites," meaning the traitors who have bought our government out from under US and replaced it with the most technically advanced and therefore the greatest danger to human freedom in all the history of mankind. I feel something is going to happen, and I feel it will happen soon. If we could only hear a Charlie Sheen on national TV. Or perhaps a Congressman Ron Paul speaking nationally instead of to himself in front of the wasteoid House of "Representatives," we might just have another chance. There are a lot of people out there in possession of the naked truth; perhaps one of them will come forward with their story.


© THEODORE E. LANG 9/10/06 All rights reserved

Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.