[extropy-chat] what can you show us?

[Robert Lindauer]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>beb_cc at yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Being there is no clear international law isn't proof
>>>of undeniably malicious intent needed in the case of
>>>war crimes?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Impeachment, not war crimes. There is a very different standard of
>>law well established here.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, and you apparently don't know anything about it either.
>  
>

I know something about the impeachment process and am unaware of the 
process for prosecuting international laws.

   1.

      The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate
      an impeachment inquiry.

   2.

      The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from
      the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before
      voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval
      requires a majority vote.

   3.

      The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly
      through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry,
      articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a
      majority of the Committee.

   4.

      The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of
      impeachment. A majority vote of the entire House is required to
      pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is,
      technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in
      the Senate.

   5.

      The Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by
      the House. The Senate sits as a jury while the Chief Justice of
      the Supreme Court presides over the trial.

   6.

      At the conclusion of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to
      remove the President from office. A two-thirds vote by the Members
      present in the Senate is required for removal.

   7.

      If the President is removed, the Vice-President assumes the
      Presidency under the chain of succession established b Amendment XXV.

 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm)

So the judiciary committee needs to decide whether the case has merit 
which it does on a political basis (since having sex with someone is not 
an impeachable offense listed in the constitution Article 2 section 4).



>  
>
>>> Since technically Iraq was in violation
>>>of agreements made previously with the UN, it would
>>>have to be shown America invaded to entirely subjugate
>>>Iraq and commit war crimes.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>It hasn't been determined by the UN security council that Iraq was 
>>definitively in violation. 
>>    
>>
>
>This is a lie. The UN clearly stated several times in resolutions that
>Iraq was in violation and made demands which the UN itself refused to
>enforce, primarily because the UN had been corrupted by Saddam's
>bribery as is now coming to light. Several countries, including France,
>Germany, and Russia, were explicitly paid off by Saddam, while quite a
>number of high UN officials were similarly bribed. A refusal to enforce
>the law because you've been bribed does not equal a claim that no law
>was broken.
>  
>

My mistake, I didn't intend to lie, Iraq was in violation and upon the 
demand of the UN re-admitted weapons inspectors into the country after 
the demand.  After that point the US decided to go to war unilatterally 
without the support of the UN.  I am unaware of the bribery by Saddam of 
the French, German and Russian governments.  If you have some links, I'd 
like to read up on it myself.

>You are suffering from a number of logical faults.
>  
>
Your claim was a factual, not logical correction.  If my logic is 
flawed, I'm not sure what you have in mind.

Robbie Lindauer
Fellow Libertarian, but kind of a leftist libertarian - free the people 
first.