[extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds amIoffered?

[Brett Paatsch]

Spike wrote:

> >
> > When you returned you set aside your own suggestion and
> > posted on this topic after the 22nd...
>
> Yes you are right.  I know I have been all over the map
> on this.  I apologize, I do not know what is the right
> thing to do.

The moderator role is a difficult one.

I think the right thing to do is to be strict about personal attacks
but also be strict about jumping on calls for topics to be banned.

In a better world the moderator role might be a paid job.

>  So I am now suggesting we continue with last
> week's agreement: go ahead and post politically-oriented
> stuff, keep it civil, keep it extropic.
>
>> I was trying to work out how to continue to talk with Hal to
>> refine our bet without doing that, without posting in bad
>> faith into a thread that was obviously going to be seen
>> by some numb nuts as being about nothing more than
>> party politics...
>
> We see it as more than party politics Brett.  I have learned
> a lot listening to the debate, for I am not an expert in
> legal matters.

Back in April in the "Small Government" thread you had nearly
the same issue when you asked about sovereignty and
Adrian Tynes replied to you with this:
http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-April/015516.html

At that stage, if I recall correctly, Adrian did not know that the
UN Charter had been ratified by the Senate and that is was a
treaty.  But unless he has forgotten he does now.

> I was under the impression that the
> president takes an oath to uphold the US constitution,
> not international law.

He does. But the Constitution incorporates Senate ratified
treaties like the UN Charter into US law so the President is
obliged by his oath to uphold the UN Charter as a matter of
US law.

> We do not vote for leaders of any international body,
> and I know of no international constitution.  I know there
> are international courts, but I do not know of any
>  international army that would enforce its rulings.

If the UN Security Council authorises force an international
army is put together from the national armies.

George H W Bush, US President number 41 successfully
and lawfully put together an international coalition when
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

>>
>> > ...  If I were
>> > to buy into that bet, I would need to think for
>> > some time to decide if I wanted to buy a yes for
>> > 23 cents or a no for 77 cents.
>>
>> My gripe with Americans is that there never is a time when
>> they do take that time out and take stock and your elected
>> officials are factoring that in now...
>
> Ja, why is that a gripe?  How else would one appraise
> the value of a wager, other than factoring everything
> that impacts the outcome of the bet?

You couldn't. You would have to understand what would
be involved in impeaching a President procedurally in
order to make a considered appraisal of the probability
of that happening.

You wouldn't need to do a whole lot more than Google
and visit wikipedia to get a pretty good idea in about
10 minutes or less.

But my gripe is that unless you do know what has to happen
procedurally, unless you care enough to Google a bit to find
out, you cannot possibly learn how to use the levers and at
this stage in human history its you US voters that have your
hands on the levers. Your congresspeople do not represent
non US citizens, they represent US citizens.

Impeachment has to be bottom up.

I think you think that this stuff is all the responsibility of
Congresspeople, that if the President has broken his oath
or office and deserves to be impeached that *they* will
take care of it, you are saddly mistaken.

They take their political cue from the American voter.
>From people such as yourself.

If the Congresspeople get that you don't care, they figure
why should they.

The US system is big, but it is not so big that any section
of it (including the voters) can take a complete holiday
from their responsibilities without there being ramifications.

Ramifications like the US President recognizing that the
voters are asleep and not interested in holding him to
his oath.

>> They are factoring in,
>> that you don't understand and they are factoring in that you
>> don't care and they are using those things to undermine the
>> freedoms that people enjoy overseas now and the ones
>> that you enjoy at home later...
>
> We care.  We vote for someone else.

That's not enough in the case of a rogue, lawbreaking President
because that basal level of involement leaves him in office and
leaves him free to keep breaking the law.

It also teaches the next guy that becomes President that the
impeachment option will not be used, that the voters do not
have the stomach for it, even if the President takes the country
to war on false pretenses.  This just encourages him to set
aside treaties whenever it suits him for domestic political
purposes.

> Are there elections
> coming up soon in Australia?

Of course in about 3 years.

>Vote for the guy that opposes the current US administration.

By then the current adminstration will not be the current
adminstration.  But the successor to the current administration
will come to office knowing either that he or she must uphold
the law and their oath because the people will hold her
accountable if she does not, or she will know that the people
will not hold her accountable for anything.

>  If that doesn't
> seem to be enough, campaign for the guy.  If that still
> isn't enough, donate money to the campaign.  That's what
> we do here.

Your solution divides the world up into nation states and would
take us back to the time before the founding of the United
Nations by Roosevelt and Churchhill.

Your solution would see the world of extropes divided into
US extropes with first class human rights and non US extropes
with less than first class human rights.

Unacceptable. Once you accept responsibility for upholding
human rights you have to accept responsibility. Your country
accepted responsibility and you are allowing it to renege.


> Last time it didn't seem worth donating either money or
> time: Badnarek was hopeless, little chance of even
> showing up on the map, the two front runners were the
> same guy in different suits.  What do you suggest?

I suggest you learn how to impeach a President before
you lose the ability to in your country. I suggest you
learn how your system works.

I am happy to answer any questions you ask in good
faith about the US Constitution or the UN Charter
but you have to give enough of a shit to ask.

> Regarding impeachment of the current leader, I wouldn't
> estimate the chances any higher than Ideas Futures is
> suggesting.


> A US president cannot be impeached for
> violating international law, only US law as far as I
> know.

See above he did violate US law when he breached
the UN Charter over 1441.

It is only Bush's own lawyers and the lawyers of others
in the same position like Blair and Howard that continue
to claim that.

In the UK there is a medical officer from the armed services
who is challenging the legal status of the war as part of
his defence.

> There is divided opinion on whether the wiretapping
> was against US law, depending on how the war powers act
> is interpreted.  I am waiting for the courts to decide
> that, but my guess is the wiretapping orders will be
> found legal.

You wanna bet ?

>> I don't want to bet on just any old bet I want to bet
>> on this particular thing because I want to bring a bunch
>> of dopey American extropes attention to this particular
>> problem...
>
> You have done that, thanks.
>
>>
>> If you are going to ignore the problem of  having a
>> nation state run by Presidents that act outside the rule
>> of law than it will, it must, inevitably get worse...
>
> Ja I am hoping the libertarian party can produce a
> viable candidate for president in 08.

Yeah he can do lunch with Elvis.

>> > Prime numbers are delightfully weird, but political
>> > matters are completely incomprehensible.
>>
>> They are only incomprehensible because you haven't
>> tried...
>
> With politics there are no underlying principles
> analogous to mathematical theorems.  We have the
> US constitution, which the leaders and the military
> swear to uphold, but these are words.

> Words are subject to interpretation.

Not infinitely. Not unless you let them be.

>> And Spike your not trying is an abrogation of
>> responsibilty...
>
> I try.  I voted for the other guy in the past
> election.  We didn't even show up in the noise.  To
> be honest however, Badnarek didn't have all the
> answers either.

Spike impeaching a President is like jury duty its
not like just voting. Its a pain in the arse but if
you don't do it there will be no good guys on the
jury.

If the US folk don't hold Bush accountable then
the whole system starts to fall into disrepair.


We were getting race riots here in Australia.

Home grown plotters have been reported in
the papers citing the invasion of Iraq as reasons
why they want to do something. Do something
like kill the Prime Minister and/or his family.

Iraq is not the front in this war. Arguably it
never was.

> Granted I didn't actually donate to
> the libertarian party last time, and I agree
> I probably should have.  It just seemed like
> such a long shot.
>
> With that in mind, we are now in a weird loop, for
> anything good that happens in Iraq is an argument
> for the invasion.  for instance, gts commented:
>
>
>>I'm very critical of the invasion of Iraq, but I'm glad to see the Iraqis
> voting in such large number. Bush got us into trouble but it looks like 
> the
> Iraqi people might bail us out.

I showed you polling figures that showed that over half the Iraqis
thought the US was wrong to invade.

Insurgents whose family have been killed don't start loving America
because they have a democratic country from which to plot their attacks.

You will have a constant intelligence battle everywhere as you have
enemies everywhere. To find those guys you will lose more and more
of your civil rights and the government will need to take more and
more desperate measures to find the "terrorist" within countres.

> Is this not a weird loop?  If the Iraqi people bail
> us out of trouble by voting, then why did not they
> start voting five years ago?  Why did they not write
> a constitution, and elect the government that they
> have now?  If they get us out of trouble by voting
> and the invasion gave them the opportunity to vote,
> and the invasion got us into trouble, then they
> would get us out of trouble by not voting, which
> is what caused the trouble to start with.

Spike of course the Iraqis will take the good stuff they are given
thats a no brainer. But it doesn't follow that you will have their
gratitude.

It almost does follow of necessity that if you killed the families
of a bunch of non terrorists going in, those guys are going
to want payback.

>  If one
> holds to UN law as the ultimate authority, then the
> US-led invasion was illegitimate, consequently the
> current Iraqi government is illegitimate, as is the
> act of voting in Iraq.  I notice the New York Times
> and the local "news" paper avoid even talking about
> the Iraqi elections.

Only because of the way it was done. Bush had other
options he just didn't choose to take them.  At the
time I presumed he was acting in good faith and was
just frustrated by the French and bungled his handling
of the diplomacy with Chirac.

But subsequently evidence has emerged that Bush
never intended not to invade Iraq, that in fact it was
his intention from way before he went to the UN.


> For now I must admit that it is a paradox.

Not to me.  It is trivial to see that some local good
can come from a global bad.

But it is just as easy for me to see that exchanging
a democratic Iraq that does not love America and
contains people who have excellent reason to hate
you for one that was not involved in terrorism is
not a good trade.

Democracies can hate America tyranny too.

Far more importantly though the US was seen by
all the world to put aside its word of honour that
it would not start a war of pre-emption.

And as long as Bush remains at large unimpeached
the world can see where the problem lies.

There are two sets of rules. One for the US President
and leader of a complacent people and one for the
rest of the world.  That is untenable.

After 9/11 2001 the world was onside with the US.

Next time there is a terrorist attack on the mainland
of the US many people will probably take the view
that at least those guys had it coming better this time.
Better them than us.

We have to watch out for terrorists as before, but
government goons running around and spying as
well now.

Brett Paatsch