I recently heard someone saying that Bush and members of his cabintet have done things which are criminal under either U.S. and/or International law.
Can anyone name a few things that they’ve done which actually are criminal?
I am not talking about immoral things they’ve done, or about incompetent things they’e done. That would require 10 billion gigs of space to list.
But what have they done that has broken the law?
Tags: Bush Administration, Gigs, Members
As a liberal, let me say nothing. Anyone asking for him being impeached is an idiot. I don’t like the man, but seriously, he is doing nothing illegal.
Abu Ghraib
illegal wire taps
It is criminal fraud for a President to initiate and supervise the creation and communication of deliberate lies to convince Americans, Congress, and the UN that another country is an imminent threat to our security if that is knowingly untrue.
Micah: George Bush is the “Commander in Chief”. He IS responsible for what happened at Abu Ghraib. And the Constitution does protect me from illegal wiretaps. It protects me from unnecessary and illegal searches. That is what a wire tap is.
Nothing!! If someone knew, then EVERYONE would know. As president, he is commander-in-chief, and can do what he pleases with the military. On the other hand, Clinton commited perjury, and was impeached…or did you forget about that?
Nothing illegal actually comes to mind. Maybe a few questionable things, and maybe a few things that would be stretching his powers (like the wire taps).
During a state of National Emergency, the president has virtually unlimited power. The wire taps thing was started shortly after the 9/11 incident, during which time we were in a state of National Emergency.
There have been mistakes made under his watch, but he has done nothing to warrant such allegations.
Do the liberals posting here truly believe his opposition is merely allowing him to slide on alleged criminal activity out of the goodness of their hearts?
baffling …..
Truth Seeker:
The President is not responsible for Abu Ghraib, the soldiers who comitted those crimes are responsible. Wire taps are authorized in the Patriot Act and privacy is not a Constitutional right anyway. Privacy is not the same thing as the 4th amendment
Questioner: If the Bush administration has in fact done anything criminal don’t you think his opponents would have indicted/impeached him already?
As for the “Bush lied people died” crowd. What did he lie about? Weapons? Really? You really haven’t done your homework.
To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Mr. Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.
How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Mr. Tenet had the backing of all 15 agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that “Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.”
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and–yes–France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix–who headed the U.N. team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past–lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:
The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km [105 miles] southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
“the consensus of the intelligence community,” as Lawrence. Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff put it, “was overwhelming” in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.
But the consensus on which Mr. Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Bill Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:
“Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Finally, Mr. Clinton’s secretary of defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.
Wait back up. Did I just point out that Saddam actually used WMD’s? I sure did and it is true. He used them on Iran and he even used them on his own people killing thousands. Ever heard of Halabjah 1988? He used mustard gas and nerve agents to kill 5000 with 7000 more injured or suffering long term illness. And there are AT LEAST A DOZEN other incidents where we used WMD’s. Go ahead and look it up.
Let’s keep going. Nancy Pelosi, that’s right Speaker of the House NANCY PELOSI , when she was only the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Want more? Okay
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.”
Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:
“We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
And here is Mr. Gore again, in that same year:
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force–if necessary–to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Mr. Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:
Kennedy: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Byrd: “The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”
I can keep going folks but I don’t want to start to bore you. The fact is that Saddam did have WMDs. He used them and dozens of people and at least a handful a intelligence agencies form different countries were convinced that they were still there and he would use them again or sell them to terrorists.
The only thing that the fact we didn’t find any WMDs after the invasion of Iraq proves is that we have failed to find them. Does that mean that they most definitely don’t exist. Of course not. Heck we can’t find Osama but does that mean he doesn’t exist? Of course not. Here’s a bit of common sense reasoning for you. If you were a dictator and a smart guy like Saddam and you knew that people were coming for your weapons, wouldn’t you hide them, maybe move them out of the country or dispose of them? I think I would.
So there you have it. In order to lie you have to give information that you know not to be true. Having said all that, just what pray tell did Bush lie about? The one and only correct answer is: He Did Not Lie.
Started a war based on cooking up the information so that the cowards in the Bush Administration from the PNAC along with the nut case Zionist Jews could staart a War in Iraq based on lies.
The PNAC tried to convince Bill Clinton on January 26, 1998 to go to war with Saddam. These nut cases are the real reason behind going into Iraq as well they were waiting for 9/11 or something like it to happen as that would be their Pearl Harbor to bring forth their nut house beliefs.
Source:
These Chickenhawks are only concerned about their own beliefs and greed and could care less what others think as they think they are superior and better than everyone else. Look at how many of these cowards have been in the Bush Administration inclusive the Big Pig Dickless Cheney who expounds nothing but hot air from his big fat lying mouth.
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
This was signed on May 9th. Isn’t this illegal under our constitution?
While it is convenient to blame the lowest ranking troops for abu graib tradition says it is the commander who is to face the harshest charges we have all witnessed the entire administration on national tv supporting the torture of detainees because they are terrorist not milititants if that were true how can you declare a war against them.Ordering illegal wire taps between Americans and somebody in a foreign nation a serious constitutional violation.For those who say I don’t care I have nothing to hide to bad that still doesn’t make it legal or constitutional.CIA secret prisons in country’s that allow torture a geneva conventions violation. I’m sure there will be others with more.
Things like wiretaps without warrant is technically against previous laws like FISA.
But after 911 they passed presidential war power resolution. Which effectively gave our president immunity from any crime.
President Bush can hold you in prison for no reason at all other than his hunch that you’re planning something bad. He will not get in any trouble for this.
So, how can you tell when someone breaks law when they pass law that says ‘this person may not follow other established laws’?
Now why would they push and pass law that says the President do not have to follow other laws? Think about that.
This is basically what happened after 911. White House lawyers argued president can do whatever necessarily to stop terrorists. It could mean they can lock you up or lock your kids up for no reason. For 1% chance that you may be terrorist without any evidence. Long as they link their actions to national security.
White House lawyers tried to structure legal language so it is impossible for the president to commit crime. This is even more disturbing than actual crimes.
Try dealing with the ‘Patriot Act’ which amends the Constitution without a vote.
Try the absurd and ridiculous war on Iraq, and the killing of a man whom our president said was a bad man, and yet Bush himself is guilty of the same crimes as Hussein and isn’t being tried in any court as yet.
That is enough for my part.
He gave the American people false information about weapons and ignored intelligence when he was advised that none were located. He proceeded with the war on this false information which caused the deaths of many people. I would say murder.
oh where to begin…. now for sure he didn’t exactly single handedly force the 2000 elec to go to the courts for the fix. he didn’t single handedly ignore daily whitehouse briefings …or let Cheney have secret meetings w/energy corp. to get the gas prices to where they are now ….illegal wiretaps..the appointment of overly under-qualified cronies to deprive AMERICANS of their safety and lives in ‘KATRINA’ …the outing of an undercover CIA operative… oh f*ck it my fingers hurt …..the guy is guilty of at least treason !!!!! the whole buch of BUSHROVIANS !!!
Nothing. There is an old saying that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will assume that it’s true. This is the case with “Bush is a criminal”.
gonzales can’t remember….
they keep blocking all of our due processes to avoid any scandal.
they will be,in my belief,one day,held accountable.
i believe they invaded a sovereign country,manufactured intel to start a war,held prisoners against our constitution,tortured prisoners against the geneva convention,are in the pocket of big corps,outed a CIA agent and i’m sure there are many more that don’t come to mind right now.
all the lower down people will continue to take the heat for these transgressions but ultimately i think the higher ups will be the ones who,historically take the blame……..
its tough to break the law and get caught when you are making the attorney general change them for you all the time..
falsifying documents and reports about the war (they are finding some non-credible sources mentioned in the reports. naturally it has to be investigated further)
there is also some question as to whether or not there was coaching before or during the attorney firings- not to mention why they were fired.
there is also a chance people are being coached when they are testifying about the matter (most notably Goodling being coached by the attorney general)
the attorney general has also changed his original statement about not talking to people before they testified, namely goodling, and now he said he did but not about the case itself.
he could be charged with perjury.
they have violated the Geneva Convention. I don’t know what the penalties are for that
having secret prisons is a violation of international law, bush has stated that himself on NBC news email Brian Williams i am sure he remembers the interview.
What are you? A researcher for some Liberal polling agency?
You have to either be slow or some idiot is actually paying you to go online and ask these inane questions. Or maybe the joke is on me!!! Ok, you have a stratospheric IQ and you happen to be a Liberal as well. You are just dumbing down your questions for the general public.
I will keep it stupid, I mean simple since you did with your 2 questions above.
No to the 1rst question. Nothing to the 2nd question.
Get real! If anyone knew of criminal activity the President would have been impeached, Cheney would be President, and all of you Libs would be back in the same boat.
But the Liberal questions all seem to have a common underlying theme. Bush is president and you cannot stand it.
Well, GROW UP. Conservatives certainly did not like it when Clinton was in office and disgraced the Whitehouse, but we did not do any of the classless CRAP I have seen on this site from the Libs. I **** to think what it will be like in 2008 when conservatives win back the House and Congress and keep the White House!!!!!
Wiretapping without obtaining approval from the “F.I.S.A court IS ILLEGAL!!! It was made so after watergate and Micah T; You had better read the US constitution. Privacy IS a constitutional right; it is in the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights!!!
I dislike Bush and Cheney even more … But let us be honest for a minute.
Since the U.S. Patriot Act was signed into law the Bush administration has done nothing that was illegal that anyone is aware of or something would already be being done about it by the Democrats, just like everything the Democrats are doing is legal or the Republicans would be all over it - not just radio entertainers from both big top tents.
They may have twisted, miscommunicated, only showed half the information, only released what they wished people to believe, refused to cooperate in a bipartisan manner, not done some things in a proper manner and possibly even been flat out ****** to anyone not in their little group but, they have not broken any law since the Patriot Act was signed.
*Unless it is meant ‘broke laws that had been overwritten by the Patriot Act’ … then i guess it wouldn’t matter, just like most old laws not in use anymore.
More Bush Criminal Activity
” >TomPaine.com - Criminal Administration” >Jailing the Messenger” >House Judiciary Committee Report Unveils a String of Criminal Activity …” >More Bush Criminal Activity
Their wire tapping was absolutely illegal. The supreme court even said it was.
Their leak of Valerie Plame’s identity was illegal. As was the cover up. So far only Scooter Libby has gone to prison as a result.
The actions **** Cheney suggested in his closed door meetings with big oil executives that have led to market manipulations and price gouging were almost certainly illegal.
Lying to start a war against a soveriegn nation is illegal under international law.
And those are just the things I know about.
You are correct,sir!This administration has been masterful in avoiding breaking specific laws.They refuse to testify under oath-therefore no possible perjury charges.(Although the other shoe may someday drop on Gonzales.)Other instances of skirting,rather than breaking the law,are rampant.I am constantly amazed at the number of people here who have absolutely zero grasp of the Constitution,but are more than willing to solve all our problems.Turn off your radio and read the Constitution.
Bush ordered the invasion of two sovereign countries without provocation - that is a violation of international law. The deaths of thousands of Iraqi innocents as a direct result of that invasion are on his head.
He violated an 1978 act limiting presidential powers. I’ll look it up right now and get back to you. Okay, here it is:
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information [5]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [6] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[7]
The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court[8], and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. [9]
Since 50 U.S.C § 1802 (a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. [10] Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties [11] and civil liabilities. [12]
[edit] With a court order
Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court.[13] Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a “foreign power” or an “agent of a foreign power”, and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent. In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain “minimization requirements” for information pertaining to US persons[14].
In 2003, Belgium dropped the war crimes charges against **** Cheney, but now it appears he’s in trouble with the SEC - see link below.
i will repeat as my friend above
Bush ordered the invasion of two sovereign countries without provocation - that is a violation of international law. The deaths of thousands of Iraqi innocents as a direct result of that invasion are on his head. statistically over a million dead iraqis
nothing
neither did scooter libby, but that didn’t stop the liberals from pushing for a coviction.
there is an unjust witch hunt out there — and this is coming from someone who doesn’t even like bush that much.
they should do their job and run this country instead of the mudslinging and smear tactics — they are wasting our money
These people have done so many bad things. If one were to make a list of them, and then analyze each one to attest that that one is a violation of law, it would be a long, long process.
I will make it my project to compile such a list and then I will email it to you as well as post it as a question.
The first one I will post is lying to congress.
It looks that some of the preceding answers did the job.