What do you think?
Rate this book
The People V. Bush: One Lawyer's Campaign to Bring the President to Justice and the National Grassroots Movement She Encounters along the Way
When journalist-turned-lawyer Charlotte Dennett became outraged that Bush White House officials were acting above the law, she did something that surprised even herself. She ran for a state attorney general seat on a platform to prosecute George W. Bush for murder. She lost the race, but found a movement—one that continues its quest to hold leaders accountable to U.S. law and preserve a Constitutional presidency. In The People v. Bush , Dennett recounts her seminal effort to prosecute the former president, introduces readers to a world where the actions of a few can indeed empower the many, and reports on the current state of the movement to hold Bush accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors. Dennett’s wild ride through politics began when she read The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by lawyer Vincent Bugliosi (best known for his prosecution of Charles Manson). In it, Bugliosi stated that one path to prosecuting George W. Bush could be taken by a state attorney general—should one take up the cause. Soon after, Dennett launched her attorney-general race in Vermont—a state known as much for its progressive edge as its pioneering spirit—signed up Bugliosi as her special prosecutor in the event that she won, and together the two made headlines across Vermont and the nation for changing the face of American grassroots democracy. Dennett’s book also explores the political triumphs of other Vermonters such as Kurt Daims, who imagined, with two human rights lawyers, Bush’s arrest should he enter the town of Brattleboro; Dan DeWalt, who launched a call for impeachment in thirty-six towns; and Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, who received wide support—but also criticism—for his 9/11 Truth Commission. With these stories and her own, Dennett shows that it’s not just possible but necessary to hold higher-ups responsible for heinous acts—not out of revenge, but to preserve justice.
- GenresPolitics
296 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
1 person is currently reading
28 people want to read
About the author
Charlotte Dennett
6 books7 followersAuthor and attorney Charlotte Dennett has been practicing law since 1997, with an emphasis on personal injury litigation and suing the government under the Freedom of Information Act. She's also been a reporter in the Middle East and is the coauthor with her husband, Gerard Colby, of Thy Will Be Done-The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. She and her husband live in Cambridge, Vermont.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 20, 2014
The dreams of a failed liberal
When founders of this country wrote constitution, they did not expect even in their wildest dreams that the long arms of the law could be stretched so far to prosecute the President of the United Sates who is trying to protect this nation under threat by Islamic terrorists. There are many liberals in the media, academics and politics who have a made a career by campaigning for prosecuting President Bush who was making very difficult decisions to deal with a new breed of enemies who use terrorism to fight a war, all in the name of their religious duties and responsibility. The author forgets the tragic events of 9/11 and the killings of thousands innocent civilians. Scores of terrorist actions have been attempted since 9/11, in this country and elsewhere against U.S citizens. What would the President do to stop this? This is not a traditional war between two responsible countries. No president has ever fought a war like this, and no president has dealt with an enemy who profess holy war, jihad, revenge, retaliation and intolerance to other faiths, beliefs and cultures to achieve his goals.
Many prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Pakistan are enemy combatants and they should be treated as such. They must be tried according to military justice. No foreign national who has set foot in this country is given access to U.S. courts, but an Islamic terrorist who tries to kill an American soldier on a foreign soil will get a shot at this. This is a twisted logic and wrong application of the law as Justice Scalia correctly observed that the constitution does not permit an enemy combatant, from a foreign soil, to access civil and criminal justice of this country. The author is more concerned about Miranda rights not being read or no proper legal representation existed when these enemies were questioned. In the case of American Taliban John Walker Lindh the author describes the efforts of department of justice (DOJ) attorney Jesselyn Radack to correct the errors in Lindh's interrogation by FBI. Both of them express a great deal of concern about his rights being violated but neither of them investigated or discussed the case of another American Al Qaeda terrorist, Jose Padilla, the so called "dirty bomber." The author claims that the government made deals with Lindh to protect FBI and DOJ. Actually he got a slap on the wrist for his actions. Any American citizen fighting with Islamic terrorists on a foreign soil against American forces is an enemy combatant and he must be tried in a military court. Mayor Giuliani suggested that he be tried by military and seek death penalty, in fact that is what Lindh deserved.
Constitutional rights is being misinterpreted and misunderstood by both conservatives and liberals. The writers of the constitution did not imagine that the laws will hold the president of this country criminally liable for his actions during a war. President Bush performed brilliantly under a great deal of pressure during a very difficult period. It is an outrage to suggest that he be held responsible for alleged legal violations.
When founders of this country wrote constitution, they did not expect even in their wildest dreams that the long arms of the law could be stretched so far to prosecute the President of the United Sates who is trying to protect this nation under threat by Islamic terrorists. There are many liberals in the media, academics and politics who have a made a career by campaigning for prosecuting President Bush who was making very difficult decisions to deal with a new breed of enemies who use terrorism to fight a war, all in the name of their religious duties and responsibility. The author forgets the tragic events of 9/11 and the killings of thousands innocent civilians. Scores of terrorist actions have been attempted since 9/11, in this country and elsewhere against U.S citizens. What would the President do to stop this? This is not a traditional war between two responsible countries. No president has ever fought a war like this, and no president has dealt with an enemy who profess holy war, jihad, revenge, retaliation and intolerance to other faiths, beliefs and cultures to achieve his goals.
Many prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Pakistan are enemy combatants and they should be treated as such. They must be tried according to military justice. No foreign national who has set foot in this country is given access to U.S. courts, but an Islamic terrorist who tries to kill an American soldier on a foreign soil will get a shot at this. This is a twisted logic and wrong application of the law as Justice Scalia correctly observed that the constitution does not permit an enemy combatant, from a foreign soil, to access civil and criminal justice of this country. The author is more concerned about Miranda rights not being read or no proper legal representation existed when these enemies were questioned. In the case of American Taliban John Walker Lindh the author describes the efforts of department of justice (DOJ) attorney Jesselyn Radack to correct the errors in Lindh's interrogation by FBI. Both of them express a great deal of concern about his rights being violated but neither of them investigated or discussed the case of another American Al Qaeda terrorist, Jose Padilla, the so called "dirty bomber." The author claims that the government made deals with Lindh to protect FBI and DOJ. Actually he got a slap on the wrist for his actions. Any American citizen fighting with Islamic terrorists on a foreign soil against American forces is an enemy combatant and he must be tried in a military court. Mayor Giuliani suggested that he be tried by military and seek death penalty, in fact that is what Lindh deserved.
Constitutional rights is being misinterpreted and misunderstood by both conservatives and liberals. The writers of the constitution did not imagine that the laws will hold the president of this country criminally liable for his actions during a war. President Bush performed brilliantly under a great deal of pressure during a very difficult period. It is an outrage to suggest that he be held responsible for alleged legal violations.
Displaying 1 of 1 review