Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentOther - Politics & Government · 1 decade ago

Did Bush break the law when he invaded Pakistan?

President George W. Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow U.S. special forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government, The New York Times reported on Thursday.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    One law among many that the Bush regime has broken.

    Bush Misled America about the Threat from Iraq.

    If Saddam Hussein was an immediate and serious threat to America, as the White House claimed, then Bush might have been justified in invading Iraq. But it appears that Bush misled the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating the threat from Iraq. By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371.

    Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address.

    Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.

    Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress.

    Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches.

    Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government.

    Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

    Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. Read the Iraq survey report.

    Lie #8 -The Bush wiretaps violated US law because he was required to get approval from FISA. He can start a wiretap of a suspected terrorist at any time but must then seek approval to continue within 72 hours.

    Lie #9- Attorney General Gonzales claims HJR114 gave Bush authority to conduct the wiretaps. But HJR114 only grants use of the "Armed Forces". HJR114 does not explicitly suspend the Constitution. Also HJR114 requires "The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3". Congress was not notified of these wiretaps.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    think of roughly your argument and justification puzzled with u . s . a . propaganda. Your comparisons with diverse worldwide places isn't stunning as they had like Germany declared conflict on yet yet another u . s . a . state. a million. it extremely is a nicely-known component to the UN shape that no u . s . a . ought to invade yet yet another worldwide places sovereignty. "meaning the u . s . a . too" the u . s . a . is in all probability considered considered one of the founding individuals of the UN and helped write the type. The UN shape additionally states that no u . s . a . could make a preemptive strike against yet yet another. "meaning the u . s . a . too" regrettably the u . s . a . desires all individuals else to maintain on with the (u . s . a .) policies yet blatantly disregards all worldwide conventions itself. "by way of employing actuality of this the worldwide hates the u . s . a ." and sees the U. S. as a superb bully. by way of employing actuality of this the u . s . a . dare no longer (and ought to no longer) sign the treaty for the worldwide courtroom, by way of fact it may be complete of u . s . a . voters who're breaking worldwide regulation continuously.. be valuable the u . s . a . will come to deeply be apologetic approximately its arrogance, as very rapidly the worldwide will flow all its reserves from the U. S. greenback to a diverse distant places places money, it has already all started and the u . s . a . financial gadget will return to the 1920's melancholy. must be then you definately interior the u . s . a . will lose the arrogance and get a sprint humility. Poverty ingredients limitless humility. the u . s . a . could be destroyed without 1 shot being fired yet via trouble-free economics. The judgement is now, the u . s . a . is a terrorist state via all standards of length. - UN shape & worldwide regulation. historic previous will condemn the u . s . a . as a phenomenon of the 20/21 century of an immiture corrupt empire that went undesirable and fell in an extremely little at the same time as.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There are a number of international treaties that are broken by this approval. But again, war breaks a lot of treaties.

    This will help destablize the newly elected govt of pakistan, so that the terrorists can take over and USA can have a new mess to deal with.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I'm more worried about the leak of the report. The New York Times is no friend to the United States. But Obama has said if he gets elected, he'll get Osama bin Laden, which is the same as saying he'll go into Pakistan also.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes. Of course this is kinda like going after Manson for a parking ticket.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The better question to ask is when didn't Bush break the law!!!!

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, he did. He is a major war criminal, but no one will do anything to stop him.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • MS S
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    All's fair in love and war. And btw that's where Osama bin Laden is.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    No because they attacked Israel our ally.

    Therefore he has a legal reason to attack.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Yikes! I'm pretty sure that's illegal and stupid.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.