Did Bush Comply With "Authorization to Use Military Force"?

Did Bush Comply With "Authorization to Use Military Force"?

As hard as he tried, twice or more and failed, Bush could NOT get the United Nations Security Council to approve his invasion of Iraq.

The United Nations Charter "prohibits the use of military force against any member nation without the approval of the Security Council", but lacking the required authorization, Bush decided to attack Iraq asserting that Congress gave him the authorization to do so by approving House Joint Resolution 114, the "Authorization to Use Military Force".

However, a closer look at the Resolution reveals that Bush did NOT COMPLY with the "most critical WHEREAS clauses" CLICK HERE http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/noiraqauthority.html

"Basically Bush tricked Congress into signing HJR114 by fraudulent means which negated his authority to invade Iraq.

Bush also violated several terms of the resolution. The first violation relates to Section 3(b), which states:

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall ... make available ... his determination that—

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;"

If Bush had told the truth about Iraq then he would have said Iraq did not pose a threat to America. In that case "diplomatic or other peaceful means" would have given us adequate protection.

Bush accused Saddam Hussein of violating the UN Security Council resolutions by not revealing the presence of his WMD. Bush then invaded Iraq without permission from the Security Council. It then became apparent that Iraq did not have WMD. Ironically, therefore, Bush violated the UN resolutions and Iraq did not.

Because Bush did not fulfill his obligation to truthfully show the need for the invasion, he did not have authority under HJR114 to invade Iraq.

The second violation relates to Section 3(c)(2), which states:

"Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."

This means Bush cannot ignore the War Powers Resolution of 1973 when determining what is "necessary and appropriate". So what does the War Powers Resolution say about this? Section 9(d)(1) states:

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or

What existing treaties address the issue of attacking other nations? Two immediately come to mind: the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter.

The Nuremberg Charter says that it is a crime to plan a war of aggression. Many people believe that Bush is the aggressor in this situation. Iraq has made no threats or attacks against the United States. They have simply built weapons to defend themselves from attack. They are also cooperating, albeit begrudgingly, with the United Nations. Bush, on the other hand, has surrounded Iraq with a huge military force and has threatened to destroy Saddam Hussein and much of Iraq in the process. Bush has also labeled the UN as irrelevant.

The UN Charter states that "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means...". War can be used but only as a last resort and only under the direction of the UN Security Council.

Bush attacked Iraq based on false pretenses and without UN permission. He, therefore, violated the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, HJR114, and indirectly the Constitution. These are grounds for impeachment."

Invite Your Friend(s) to Vote: