No announcement yet.

Lawsuit Launched Against Bush & Rumsfeld

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Lawsuit Launched Against Bush & Rumsfeld

    The suit seeks an immediate injunction to stop Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from launching a war against Iraq. A hearing is scheduled for Monday 24 February 03 at the U.S. District Court in Boston.

    Antiwar Lawsuit WTVG News

    (Boston-AP) -- U.S. Representative John Conyers says in a planned lawsuit that President Bush does NOT have the authority to launch a military invasion of Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.
    The suit is expected to be filed in Boston today. The Detroit Democrat, five other U.S. House members, three U.S. service members and the parents of other U.S. military personnel are filing the suit.

    They say that the congressional declaration on Iraq last October did NOT specifically declare war and unlawfully gave Bush the right to make that decision. The suit names Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as defendants.

    your wrie my friend bush sucks:kaboom:he should have one of those bomming him selkf.


      Brilliant, except the President can wage war unilaterally for up to 90 days without first seeking congressional authority.


        Then people wonder why the US did not endorse the International Criminal Court. Politicizing courts simply dilutes the value of the real cases. When we have cut the number of lawyers in the world by a third, I will be happy!
        Boycott Venezuelas State owned Citgo.

        Buy Royal Dutch Shell gasoline!


          Utd, I dont think the plaintiffs would of launched this suit against Bush unless there were real doubts about his authority to declare war. There are many legal complexities involved here. I should think they will be building a powerful case in the coming days against Bush And Rumsfeld.


            Perhaps Dil, well see. I would actually like to see a new resolution go before congress before any action is taken against Iraq.


              OhioGuy writes:
              “When we have cut the number of lawyers in the world by a third, I will be happy!”
              First you want to spend my $26B in tax dollars to entice Turkey to help in our Iraqi invasion and THEN you want to cut the number of lawyers by a third. If I am one you cut, give me back my $26B please. J

              DHP writes:
              “I dont think the plaintiffs would of launched this suit against Bush unless there were real doubts about his authority to declare war.”

              Bush does not have the authority to “declare war.” But, as President he has the authority to send troops into combat without declaring war. It does not appear as if the US will “declare war” on Iraq. I think the point of the lawsuit is to argue that he should not have the right to send troops to Iraq without a formal declaration of war. While I have not read the legal basis for the Plaintiff’s case, Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Afghanistan, etc. seem to have established a pretty strong precedent that declarations of war are not required. This lawsuit is likely to be dumped by the court in short order.
              "I met the surgeon general - he offered me a cigarette. " --Rodney Dangerfield


                Don't forget Kosovo.


                  myvoice, the lawyers will be pressing the case that Congress did not specifically make a declaration of war on Iraq when they passed a resolution in Oct 2002 but they unlawfully gave the right to declare war directly to Bush which is a clear violation of the United States Constitution.

                  Plaintiffs: President Must Have Congressional Declaration To Launch War NBC4 13 Feb 03

                  Sixteen people, including six members of Congress and five active military personnel, filed the lawsuit in a federal court in Boston on Thursday morning, seeking an injunction against Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The group's attorney said the plaintiffs have a message for Bush: "Read the Constitution."

                  One of the plaintiffs, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, said the Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war. He and the other plaintiffs say a resolution passed by Congress in October did not specifically declare war. They also say it unlawfully gave the power to Bush. "The president is not a king," attorney John Bonifaz told WCVB-TV in Boston. "He does not have the power to wage war against another country absent a congressional declaration of war. Congress has not declared war." Congress has not formally declared war since World War II.

                  The lawsuit claims that Bush will break the law if the United States invades Iraq. Thousands of troops have been activated in recent weeks. A judge struck down a similar lawsuit against President George H.W. Bush before the 1991 Gulf War. But this group's lawyer said this case is different because soldiers have joined the lawsuit. Nancy Lessin and her husband, Charles Richardson, filed the lawsuit because they said they are worried about their 25-year-old son, who is in the Gulf region and is not part of the lawsuit.

                  "We notice that those who say we've got to go to war aren't going anywhere, nor are their loved ones," Lessin told WCVB. "It's other people's children who are now in harm's way -- our children." "And now, more than ever, we need checks and balances," Richardson told the station. "Now, when fear is being used to fuel the rush to war, is when cooler heads need to prevail."

                  "The judiciary has the responsibility to intervene here and protect the Constitution and uphold the rule of law," Bonifaz said. "We have three branches of government, and we have one branch of government -- the executive branch -- which is about to engage in a grave violation of the United States Constitution." There has been no response yet from the Bush administration. The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction and an expedited hearing. An expedited hearing was granted, and a federal judge will hear the case next Thursday.


                    It's really pretty simple. The US will not declare war, just like it hasn't done in every other conflict since WWII. And as GS members are more than happy to point out - the US has used its military on dozens of occasions since then. Bush is going to go in and kick butt just like his daddy did. Except this time he is going to do something his daddy didn't do - he's gonna take out Saddam.


                      semi, There is a major difference between the situation now and the situations in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, or Afghanistan when declarations of war were not utilised. The Bush Adminstration is trying to overthrow the Sadam regime during a time of peace within the region, there is currently no civil war or turmoil within Iraq, despite this Bush wants to invade even though experts have stated that Iraq poses no direct threat to any other nation. The Bush Administration is trying to justify their right to make a pre-emptive attack. This would be a gross violation of International Law and would be considered an Act of WAR by the worlds nations. Bush & co have failed miserably to supply evidence about Iraqs Alleged WMD, instead they seem to be experts in providing inconclusive data and so called intelligence information written by college students and journalists. I think the Courts will be making some important decisions in the coming days.


                        On October 10th 2002 the Congress of the United States overwhelmingly authorized use of military force against Iraq if needed.

                        While not a declaration of war, it will provide more than enough cover in the courts, and the US will claim that Iraq is in violation of the cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War, not to mention numerous UN resolutions. The violation of the cease fire agreements would provide the President with additional US joint resolutions dating back to Authorization of Use of Force from the Original Gulf War.

                        There has been no official end to the original Gulf War. I do not believe that the US signed the cease fire agreement on behalf of the UN, but on behalf of the Coalition, and the US in particular. Frankly any violation of that agreement and the war could have been back anytime......

                        MyVoice, to you have the ability to find that original ceasefire agreement? I have been unable to find it.

                        This will prove to me that you are one of the 66% of the lawyers that are worthy of retention!
                        Boycott Venezuelas State owned Citgo.

                        Buy Royal Dutch Shell gasoline!


                          Once again you make your case for all the wrong-doings by the US but neglect the gross violations of law that have been committed by Iraq for the past 12 years. You also leave out the fact that Iraq has provided inconclusive data and so called intelligence information which they have been required to do by many different United Nations Resolutions. They have failed miserably to supply evidence about the destruction of their not alleged, but admitted WMD.

                          What makes this situation similar to other military actions of the past half-century is that the president has determined it is in the nation's best interests to intervene. The United Nations is obviously not going to do it. And if you call the dire situation that most of the people in the ME live in as "peace", who wants that kind of peace?

                          Bush's reasons for going to war are never stated in the dozens of posts regarding poor, abused Iraq. He laid out his reason very cleary before the UN last year. So clearly that the Security Council voted unanimously for 1441, which Iraq has continued to defy.

                          President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly

                          Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

                          To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.
                          He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

                          In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people. including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

                          Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive.
                          Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

                          In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

                          In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

                          In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

                          From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

                          United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

                          And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

                          Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

                          Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

                          In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

                          In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again…

                          As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

                          We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

                          Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming...


                            Originally posted by underthedome:
                            Perhaps Dil, well see. I would actually like to see a new resolution go before congress before any action is taken against Iraq.
                            Utd, Ultimately it is public opinion which will sway congress to make a declaration of war or not.. I think the Democrats and disgruntled Republicans need to utilize the strong anti-war sentiments shown by millions of Americans and create a unified stance against the Bush doctrine of Pre-emptive strike. Polls have already suggested that the majority of Americans DO NOT support unilateral action against Iraq.


                              Suit challenges Bush war authority CNN

                              BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A group of U.S. soldiers, parents of soldiers and six U.S. House members filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday seeking to stop the president from launching a war against Iraq without a declaration of war from Congress. The lawsuit seeks an immediate injunction against Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to prevent them from launching an invasion of Iraq. Reps. John Conyers, D-Michigan, and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit say a resolution passed by Congress in October did not specifically declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to Bush.

                              Conyers cited an excerpt from Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that states, "Congress shall have power ... to declare war." "Get it? Only Congress," Conyers said Thursday at a news conference in Washington. John Bonifaz, the Boston attorney who filed the lawsuit, said Bush is rushing to war without seeking approval or even a thorough debate by Congress. "We have a message for President Bush today -- read the Constitution," Bonifaz said. ...