An Interview with Terry Jastrow

An interview with Terry Jastrow, author of THE TRIAL OF PRISONER 043

1. You are a successful playwright, screenwriter, and Emmy award–winning producer/director best known for producing or directing some of the world’s largest sporting events, including one Super Bowl, six Olympic Games, and over sixty major golf championships. You’re also married to the Oscar-nominated, Golden Globe–winning actress Anne Archer. Why did you write this novel? It would be foolish to say that all wars are unnecessary because obviously wars such as World War II and the Korean War were fought for very good reasons. But in the last sixty-five years, America fought two unnecessary and perhaps illegal wars: Vietnam and Iraq. If leaders of superpowers are allowed to wage unnecessary wars with impunity, then humanity is destined to be plagued by them. I felt strongly that someone had to do something about it. Then I thought, how about me?

2. Are you concerned that some will view your book as a rant by a West Coast liberal elite? I am not a West Coast liberal elite. For the record, I voted for Nixon, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush when he first ran for president. What I am is a born-and-bred American who hates war. I spent three and a half years researching and writing this story because I believe it is important for the future of all humankind. Why? Because the more sophisticated and powerful weaponry becomes, the more destructive it will be. Also, let us not forget that 75 percent of the American people believed the Iraq war was not worth the cost, and 80 percent disapproved of the way George Bush handled the war. Furthermore, the concept of George W. Bush being tried in a globally recognized legal forum about whether or not he waged an illegal war was a way to focus on and critically look at both sides of an issue that has had, and will continue to have, a ripple effect across the entire course of modern human history.

3. Your book, in part, is a courtroom drama. Was it difficult to write the arguments for both a strong prosecution and a strong defense of George W. Bush? Did your personal views ever inspire you to stack the deck for one point of view? Not at all. From the beginning, I set out to advocate for both sides equally. To do anything less would defeat the entire purpose and premise of the book. Just like the judges in this case, the reader is given all the information to come to his or her own conclusion. I set out to tell the story in a balanced way so that readers could determine for themselves who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist, depending on their personal point of view, which may or may not shift during the reading of the book.

4. Donald Trump is now president of the United States and, as such, will inevitably have to make decisions about war and national security. What are the lessons you think he should take from the experiences of George W. Bush? Most Americans and others around the world wanted to see Osama bin Laden brought to justice, but, as has now been proven, George Bush did not use sufficient US military assets to track him down and take him out. After more than a year in which bin Laden had not been brought to justice, Bush got desperate and used the bully pulpit of his presidency to shift the focus away from bin Laden and on to Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11. And we all know the results of his war. So I say to President Trump, “Do what is mandated by the American people and not what is most politically expedient for you. The world is watching.”

5. One of the most contentious points of debate is whether George W. Bush manipulated or lied about intelligence reports leading up to the Iraq War. We’re now living in an age of “fake news,” and we have a president who is loose with the truth and urges citizens to distrust the media. Is there a danger that Trump could manipulate intelligence to lead us into war? Yes, in the same way George Bush used the fake news that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, when there was no hard evidence of his having WMD since the mid-1990s. Remember also that Lyndon Johnson used fake news of an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to get Congress to approve his escalation of the Vietnam War. Politicians have been using fake news to dupe the American people for years. But fortunately, now we have the Internet, which allows people access to real-time information on what has happened and is happening. Additionally, we now have the International Criminal Court, which is endorsed by 124 countries and stands above all national courts to adjudicate the worst crimes known to humanity. So the note to President Trump is that while he may be able to fake-news-dupe the people, it is highly unlikely he would get away with it in a court of international justice.

6. You mentioned the International Criminal Court, and yet the United States is not a member. Why is that? During the final hours of Bill Clinton’s presidency, he signed documents that would allow the United States to become a member of the ICC. However, soon after George W. Bush became president, he withdrew America’s intent to join. You might ask, why did George Bush do that? Well, if you read this book, you may discover the answer. Also, for the record, while it is true that the United States is not a member of the ICC, all its closest allies—the UK, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico— are members.

7. Governments across the world, including the United States’ new Republican administration, are challenging the jurisdiction of international courts over sovereign countries and leaders. In your novel, George W. Bush is the first head of a major nation to be subjected to international law before the International Criminal Court. Why should international courts have the authority to try our nation’s leaders? Doesn’t this put American sovereignty at risk? Given the current structure of the US government, it would be possible for another American president to wage a reckless and perhaps illegal war. The prevailing concept is that the ICC exists to prosecute those who are accused of committing war crimes if they are not prosecuted in their own nation. It's worth noting that in international law, the commission of the worst crimes known to humanity—war crimes, genocide, prisoner abuse, torture, intentional killing of civilians, and others—carry no statute of limitations, meaning the perpetrator is held accountable for such crimes until the day he or she dies.

8. The war in Iraq has strengthened hatred against the West and led to the rise of terrorist networks like ISIL. President Bush claimed that US forces would be welcomed in Iraq as liberators. Does the United States have a moral obligation to impose democracy on cultures whose traditions do not support it? It is a monumental act of hubris and aggression for superpowers to seek to enforce their form of government on others that do not want it. Great Britain tried with America in the eighteenth century and failed, thankfully. America tried to democratize Vietnam with disastrous consequences. Not only does the United States not have such a moral obligation, it has plenty of problems at home that should require its focus, attention, and treasury: poverty, illiteracy, hunger, crumbling infrastructure, and the list goes on.

9. George W. Bush claims that going to war against Iraq was necessary to strengthen the security of our country. Many would argue with that point. Is there anything that can be done to prevent a president from waging war? Not only did George W. Bush’s war not strengthen the security of our country, he and the Iraq War put America in great jeopardy, as the results of the war and the current climate prove. The only thing that can prevent a president from waging an unnecessary war is an informed, fair-minded, and active citizenry—the power of the people!

10. You were raised in a conservative part of the country. You and George W. Bush played Little League baseball against each other in Midland, Texas, and saw each other socially when you were young adults in Houston. So why do you feel it’s so important to consider the possible criminality of his presidency? George W. Bush is a very engaging guy with a terrific personality. But this is not a popularity contest; this is war and peace, life and death. If George Bush committed war crimes, then he should be held accountable, whether he has a fun personality or not. Many believe he was one of the worst American presidents ever. This is not just about George Bush; this is about potential abuses of power in the future and looking more carefully at the most effective measures to keep them in check.

11. Won’t this book just add more divisiveness to our politically polarized country? If one believes, as I do, that "the truth will set you free," then George Bush must be held accountable for his actions, just like the rest of us. Presidents certainly accept praise for their presidency. They must accept criticism and blame when appropriate as well. 12. You seem to be fundamentally against the use of military force? Quite the contrary. I believe nations, especially superpowers, should have a very strong military to protect and defend their homeland and friends, like we did in World War II, Korea, and Kuwait, but not to invade and conquer like we tried in Vietnam and Iraq. I’m with Teddy Roosevelt, who said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

13. Your book begins with the kidnapping of George W. Bush from a European golf course to face charges before the International Criminal Court. Some say that Bush does not travel out of the country for fear of facing arrest on international charges. Do you think that’s true? Do you feel that a US president should be taken by force to face charges abroad? First, this book is set in the future and is fiction. Who’s to say where he might travel and what he might think? Next, for the rule of law to matter, all people must be held accountable for their crimes, especially heads of states who have been given the sacred honor and privilege of serving their people. In the book, Bush was taken by force in the UK for the simple reason that the United States does not recognize the ICC, and this was one plausible way to “arrest” him for his alleged crimes.

14. The fictional prosecution of George W. Bush is led by an American lawyer working for the International Criminal Court and a female attorney born and raised in Fallujah, Iraq. Why did you think it important to have these two characters lead the prosecution against the president? It seemed only appropriate that the prosecuting attorneys be from the countries most affected by Bush’s war: America and Iraq. After all, these countries had the most to win or lose.

15. Do you actually think your novel can make a difference? I believe the voices of artists around the world are the most powerful voices for the protection and preservation of human rights, human dignity, and peace. It seems evident that the government, the military, and the press will not oppose unnecessary wars, as each profits greatly from wars. Only the impassioned voices and will of fair- minded people around the world can oppose war and promote the preservation of the common good. The concept of peace, not war, needs to be constantly communicated throughout humankind, and no group can communicate as effectively as artists.