What laws has George W. Bush Broken?

Question

Please provide stature(s) and date.

Heres what I found..
The U. S. Constitution, Art. VI, para. 2, makes treaties adopted by the U.S. part of the “law of the land.” Thus, a violation of the U. N. Charter, Hague IV, Geneva Conventions, etc. is also a violation of U.S. federal law.

U.S. Federal Law 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (War Crimes Act of 1996) makes committing a war crime, defined as: " ...a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party... " punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death.


The following treaties and charters which define: wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV)

Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator…of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these p

Answer 1

Oh please! He signed 802 slips that he wasn't going to go by the law, one was the Patriot Act, which he violated until he was caught going through peoples bank accounts! He illigally tapped US citizens phone calls withourt a warrant, which was reqiuired by law!

He violated the Geneva Conventions, and the US Supreme Courrt said he did twice!

International Law Aspects of the Iraq War
and Occupation

Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would "not be in conformity with the Charter" and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK of their responsibilities as an occupying power. The section also looks at wartime violations on the Iraqi side.


Torture and Prison Abuse in Iraq

2006 | 2005 |


British Attorney General's Advice to Blair on Legality of Iraq War (March 7, 2003)
In his legal advice to British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the legality of the Iraq war, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith describes regime change in Iraq as a disproportionate response to Saddam Hussein's alleged failure to disarm, illegal in the eyes of international law. Goldsmith stresses that in terms of legality, "regime change cannot be the objective of military action."


2006
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor (August 25, 2006)
A prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, Benjamin Ferenccz, believes US President George W. Bush’s aggressive war in Iraq constitutes a “supreme international crime” capable of prosecution in an international court. Claiming that the atrocities of the Iraq war were “highly predictable," Ferenccz points to the UN Charter, which unequivocally states that no nation can use armed force without UN Security Council permission. He convincingly argues that, due to his invasion of Iraq and the subsequent acts of the US military, Bush should face charges for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. (OneWorld)

Iraqi Leaders Question US Troops' Immunity (July 6, 2006)
Iraqi leaders have called for a review of the US-implemented law that prevents prosecution of coalition forces in Iraqi courts. Following reports of several alleged atrocities by US troops against Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that immunity from prosecution encourages members of coalition forces to “commit such crimes in cold blood.” This Washington Post article concludes that challenges to the immunity order could widen a rift between US and Iraqi authorities.

UN Security Council Should Ensure Full Accountability for Multinational Force Abuses (June 14, 2006)
In a statement ahead of a Council meeting reviewing the mandate of the Multinational Force (MNF), Amnesty International USA calls on the UN Security Council and the Iraqi government to hold to account “those who commit crimes under international law in Iraq, including members of the US-led MNF.” Amnesty demands that the Council not extend the immunity from legal proceedings for abuses by the MNF or their contractors and concludes that “the Iraqi criminal justice system should be able to exercise jurisdiction over any crime committed in Iraq.”

Iraq Tells UN it Wants Multinational Force to Stay (June 13, 2006)
Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari has formally notified the UN Security Council that it wants the US-led multinational force (MNF) to remain in place. Resolution 1637 said the Council would terminate the MNF’s mandate at the request of Iraq's government. The letter's release coincided with a five-hour visit to Baghdad by US President George W. Bush. (Reuters)

Letter from the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations Addressed to the President of the Security Council (June 9, 2006)
Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari has requested that the Security Council extend the mandate of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq, due for review in June. In a letter addressed to the President of the Council, Zebari thanked the MNF for its assistance in “providing security and stability in Iraq.” Under Resolution 1637 (2005), the Council can terminate the force’s mandate at any time if Iraq’s government asks it to do so. In addition, Zebari welcomed the continuation of the current arrangements for the Development Fund for Iraq and the International Advisory and Monitoring Boards.

NGO Letter to the Security Council (May 19, 2006)
A group of 27 NGOs points out that the US-led Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq has seriously violated international law, including bans on the use of torture, illegal detentions, siege tactics against population centers, and “indiscriminate and especially injurious” weapons. Furthermore, the MNF is responsible for failing to address patterns of corruption and mismanagement in Iraq’s development fund and reconstruction programs. Citing numerous official reports and legal texts, the letter urges Council members to “substantially reconsider, revise or terminate” the MNF’s mandate to bring it into conformity with international law. (Global Policy Forum)

A Safer Weapon, With Risks (May 18, 2006)
The US military has developed a laser weapon device for use in Iraq that temporarily blinds oncoming drivers approaching military checkpoints. The device, which can be attached to an M-4 rifle, was designed to allow soldiers to “dazzle” rather than fire at drivers who fail to stop. Though the military designed the device to reduce death and injury, human rights groups have criticized laser weapons, calling them cruel, unusual and illegal under Protocol IV of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. (Los Angeles Times)

NGO Letter to the Security Council on Iraq (March 14, 2006)
On the eve of the Security Council’s quarterly discussion on the situation in Iraq, a group of NGOs has written the Council to voice their concern. Several disturbing reports have been released by Secretary General Kofi Annan, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), and human rights organizations. These reports have highlighted significant violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, especially in the area of detention practices. In response, the NGOs ask the Council to break its pattern of pro forma review, “accept its responsibility” and “substantially review the mandate it has given to the MNF.”

Tortured Logic (February 28, 2006)
According to former US Army interrogator Anthony Lagouranis, mid- and low-level officials have shouldered all responsibility for prison abuse in Iraq, despite signals from high level officials justifying the use of torture. Interrogators routinely use dogs, hypothermia, and other “enhancements” while interrogating prisoners, despite clear violations of international law. Colonel Thomas Pappas, the top intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib, admitted authorizing such techniques without regard for the Geneva Conventions. Though US President George Bush has signed legislation banning torture, he asserts the right to interpret the legislation "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president" as justification for the continued use of torture. (New York Times)

Former UN Human Rights Chief in Iraq Says US Violating Geneva Conventions, Jailing Innocent Detainees (February 28, 2006)
In this interview, former United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) human rights chief John Pace discusses sectarian violence, US military operations, and the legality of the war. According to Pace, ongoing US military operations have led to widespread civilian displacement and destruction, and along with the rise in sectarian militias contribute most to instability in Iraq. Furthermore, US detentions violate the Geneva Conventions and as many as 90 percent of all Iraqi prisoners are innocent. “Normalization,” Pace says, cannot go forward in Iraq so long as the US military occupation remains. (Democracy Now!)

Ocampo Turns Down Iraq Case: Implications for the US (February 2006)
International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo announced that his office will not investigate war crimes committed in Iraq by coalition forces. The Bush administration has staunchly opposed the ICC claiming it will “unfairly target” US military personnel. Ocampo’s decision gives evidence of the court's impartiality. (Citizens for Global Solutions)

Blair in Secret Plot with Bush to Dupe UN (January 29, 2006)
Leaked White House documents reveal that UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush planned to invade Iraq regardless of whether or not they won UN approval. Though Blair has asserted that the final decision to invade was made only twenty-four hours before the war began, the leaked documents from a high-level meeting between Bush and Blair indicate that the decision was made before the Security Council discussed - but never adopted - a second resolution authorizing war against Iraq. (Mail on Sunday)

Accession through the Backdoor (January 2006)
When bullying fails, the US uses military force to further its trade agenda. On February 11, 2004, less than a year after the US invasion, Iraq was granted observer status at the World Trade Organization (WTO) while under the rule of Paul Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority. Though not yet a WTO member, Iraq has steadily progressed in the secretive process of WTO accession thanks to heavy US prodding. UK Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith has warned that structural economic reforms, as imposed by the US occupation and required for WTO membership, “would not be authorized under international law.” (Focus on the Global South)

Willy Peter (January 2006)
This article examines the US military’s use of white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon commonly known as “Willy Peter,” in the November 2004 attacks on Fallujah. Though white phosphorous munitions are banned under the 1980 Geneva Convention on Biological and Chemical Weapons, the US has not signed the agreement and instead classifies white phosphorous as a “psychological” weapon. As ZMag points out, there is nothing psychological about a weapon that melts skin to the bone while damaging the nervous system and blocking the circulation of blood.

2005
Iraq and the Laws of War: US as Belligerent Occupant (December 22, 2005)
In this article, University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle rigorously analyses the legal aspects of the US occupation of Iraq. On several counts, he concludes, the war is illegal. In addition to violating the customary international laws of war, as set forth by the 1907 Hague Convention, the Nuremburg Charter, and the Geneva Conventions, the Bush administration has also repeatedly violated the US Army Field Manual in its conduct of the Iraq war. (CounterPunch)

UN Report: Coalition Forces in Iraq Hold 11,559 (November 14, 2005)
According to a United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) report covering the period of September 1 to October 31, both US- and Iraqi-led military forces have had a negative impact on human rights. The report criticizes US and Iraqi armed forces for arresting doctors and occupying medical facilities in Anbar province, in violation of international human rights law. To view the report, click here. (Associated Press)

UN Food Envoy Says Coalition Breaking Law in Iraq (October 14, 2005)
In a press statement on World Food Day, UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler accuses US and British forces of violating the Geneva Conventions. Specifically, Ziegler highlights the practice of cutting supplies of food and water to Iraqi civilians so as to encourage them to flee before major military attacks. The Geneva Conventions prohibit the deprivation of food and water as a weapon of war. Ziegler hopes the General Assembly will "condemn this strategy of the coalition forces" when he presents his report in New York on October 27, 2005. (Reuters)

The "Tribunal Movement" Holds Court in Istanbul (June 26, 2005)
The World Tribunal on Iraq, a project of the global antiwar movement, investigates “legal and moral culpability for documented crimes” committed by the US government in its war against Iraq. Despite critics’ accusations that the Tribunal is biased and unwarranted, this truthout article points out that it plays an important role in “filling in the gaps where governments and even the United Nations are unable and unwilling to act.”

Wilmshurst Resignation Letter (March 24, 2005)
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, former Deputy Legal Advisor to the UK Foreign Office, resigned in March 2003 over the Iraq War. In her resignation letter, which the BBC website published in March 2005, she calls the joint US-UK invasion “unlawful” and “a crime of aggression” because the Security Council did not issue a resolution authorizing the use of force.

Answer 2

Does it count number!!! he's president, voted in via the persons of u.s. to symbolize u.s. and its movements. He does what he feels precise as in all probability the main useful guy contained in the worldwide. all of us smash the regulation, next time you're going merely 1km an hour over the fee shrink on your vehicle your breaking the regulation... what's regulation, is it in place to guard others, if the respond to it relatively is sure and Bush believes that he did what he did to guard others then NO he did no longer smash the regulation.

Answer 3

He claims he IS the law. That should be enough in of itself to send any american into a rage. If it doesn't then you are not a patriot

Laws broken;
He violated his oath to protect and defend the constitution. Fact
He overstepped his constitutional authority by overriding FISA. Fact
He authorized torture of human beings. Fact (and yes the constitution applies to all people - not just citizens)

Need more? Any of these are legitimately Impeachable offenses.

Answer 4

How much time do you have?

Just start by reading the Constitution -

Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

Shall we consider all the ways this administration has violated THAT section of the Consitution? Or was it just "a guideline" not a law all these years?

Amendment VI.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Guess that doesn't apply if we're really, REALLY mad at someone, huh?

And then there is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which provides for the President a classified process for collecting sensitive intelligence with the approval of a court.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95- 511, 92 Stat. 1783 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1811, 1821-1829, 1841-1846, 1861-62).

And, of course, there is the June 29, 2006 decision of the [Bush] Supreme Court of the United States ruling agains the Bush administration in their treatment of "detainees."

Since I'm not an attorney, this is the best I can do in a few minutes, but I'm sure attorneys could provide you with many, many more instances.

And, of course, we're only talking about the things we know about - we aren't talking about the things that the Bush administration still has hidden behind a shield of executive privilege and classifications and plain, unadulterated lying and subterfuge.

Then, of course, there are all the international laws that he has violated, including the Geneva Conventions which attempt to protect everyone during a time of war.

Answer 5

50 U.S.C. §1801 et al. (FISA) -- Warrantless wiretapping is illegal if anyone (US citizen or resident alien) is a party to the conversation. Admitted by him on multiple different occasions that the NSA is listening in to conversations where at least one party is in the US. The govt also stipulated to violation of FISA in the ACLU v. NSA case decided last month.

18 U.S.C. § 2511 -- Compliance with FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance... may be conducted". See above.

18 U.S.C. § 2441: War Crimes as defined under federal law, which include specific violations of articles of the Geneva Conventions. Confirmed in the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (Section II), and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) (Section I, confirming §2441 applies).

That's just what he has publicly admitted to, and what federal courts have already confirmed. Other arguable violations:

18 USC 402: Contempt of Court, for unreasonably delay to abide by the Hamdi and related decisions requiring access to counsel.
Also for denial of habeas corpus (see last link, ref section 1005)
18 USC 372: Conspiracy resulting in injury to any officer of the US, where such officer is conducting his lawful duties.
18 USC 371: Conspiracy to interfere with the normal functioning of the government, by signing statements indicating that he will refuse to enforce any law that he doesn't agree with. (last link)
18 USC 1001: Fraud, for making material false statements to Congress, or willfully refusing to provide information to Congress. (last link; see provisions relating to sections 8106 and 8119, et al.)
18 USC 1505: Obstruction, making material false statements to Congress, and for willfully refusing to provide information to Congress (see previous)

Answer 6

•Deception of Congress and the American Public

o Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)

oMaking False Statements Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1001)

oWar Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)

oMisuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. § 1301)

•Improper Detention, Torture, and Other Inhumane Treatment

oAnti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340-40A)

oThe War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441)

oThe Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees

oUnited Nations Convention Against Torture, and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees

oCommand Responsibility (for known illegal acts of subordinates in the military)

oDetainment of Material Witnesses (18 U.S.C. §
3144)

•Retaliating against Witnesses and Other Individuals

oObstruction Congress (18 U.S.C. § 1505)

oWhistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. § 2302)

oThe Lloyd-LaFollette Act, or "anti-gag rule" (5 U.S.C. § 7211)

oRetaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 1513)

•Leaking and other Misuse of Intelligence and other Government Information

oRevealing Classified Information in Contravention of Federal Regulations (Executive Order 12958/Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement)

oStatutory Prohibitions on Leaking Information (18 U.S.C. § 641, etc.)

•Laws Governing Electronic Surveillance

oForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq.)

oNational Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15)

oCommunications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 222)

oStored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. § 2702)

oPen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. § 3121)

Answer 7

Go on line and find out.

The anti prppaganda law is one. He is waiting until he leaves office before it can be proscessed. It has to do with the VNR's

Clinton had a few charges also that had to wait. To me that just means they get away with it.

I would like to see this torture thing come to a head. It is a disgrace for the whole country.

Answer 8

If you really thing about it, he didn't break any laws at all. It just shows so much hate against the Commander and Chief is so rampant that lies from the left wing sociopaths is believable by the mindless masses, produced by our atrocious government schools.

Bill Clinton made it a policy of the United States of American to invade Iraq because Saddam was a potential threat.

THIS IS AN UPDATE YOU B*$#@ES:

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."

Answer 9

The Law of War,

Date 8000 BC
"Do anything and everything necessary to defeat your enemy."
This law can be found in the Bill of Common Sense. It is also the only Law that pertains to War.

Answer 10

George W. Bush, our current President, has neither been accused of nor indicted for breaking any laws presently on the books of any government entity within the United States of America.

Answer 11

Well it appears that I got to this question late and everyone has pretty much covered most of the violations.