[extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? Onwhatbasis?

[Brett Paatsch]

Jeff Davis wrote:

> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I think there is very likely to be good grounds for
>> impeaching President
>> George W Bush. But it is not going to happen even if
>> there are good
>> grounds if those that would want it to happen do not
>> get their shit together
>> enough to make a persuasive case when a persuasive
>> case is a case that
>> would be able to convince an impartial but
>> interested person.
> 
> Many people, I think, have a misconception about
> impeachment.  Because it bears some similarity to a
> legal proceeding, that is a trial, some folks may
> think of it as such.  But that's not the case. 

I put the words "cases of presidential impeachment" into
Google and get these links. 

Presidential Impeachment : The Legal Standard and Procedure
http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Aug/1/130987.html
Its an article from 2000, that starts out "an involuntary removal
of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in
our history". This article points at the relevant clause is the 
Constitution. 

http://ca.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577202/Impeachment.html
says:  "Two United States presidents have been impeached. The U.S. 
House of Representatives impeached President Andrew Johnson in 1868 
and President Bill Clinton in 1998. President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974
as impeachment proceedings were under way."

Victims or rogues? The impeachment of Presidents Clinton and
Yeltsin in comparative perspective 
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KVD/is_3_4/ai_n11843453


I don't doubt that many people *do* have a misconception about 
impeachment. I would like to know more about the details of it
myself.  

If we could get to a stage where there were multiple extropian list
posters that knew how impeachment works then we'd be in
a position to have intelligent conversations about it.  I think that 
would be a healthy thing.  I think, the lack of understanding about
how governments works both feeds into the sort of unrealistic 
predictions about the future that flash up from time to time and
it encourages future Presidents to treat the public like mugs. 


> In a
> trial the facts are considered, and the judge or jury
> is obliged by tradition, duty, and/or legal
> requirement to decide the case based on those facts. 
> An impeachment however is far more likely to be
> decided --the facts notwithstanding--on the basis of
> purely political considerations, that is, on the basis
> of pure partisanship.  

Your words "far more likely" suggest that you are weighting
probabilities. But how can you do be doing that?

Are you just concluding that the whole exercise is pointless
because you don't want to look into it. Because it seems
like a dead end and a waste of time? 

I suspect that that is likely to be the reason why most people
will not look at or consider it. They don't care enough. They
cant see that it will affect them.  

If they don't care enough though that message eventually gets
integrated into the thinking of the sorts of people that run for
office and may find themselves in the role of President in 
future. 

> If one party owns the house,
> the senate, the judiciary, a majority of the states,
> and a majority of the people, then the president, as
> long as he is a member of that party, is safe, no
> matter how damning the evidence.

If that is so then it is so. If it isn't and you and enough think
it is then perhaps it will become so. 

I can't think why any President following George W Bush would
worry about being impeached if he sees what George W Bush has
managed to ride out. 

The President appoints a lot of his own staff and senior officials.
The President has enormous control over resources including the
emerging technological resources. 

I am concerned that the US which has been a leading construct
for progress may become a leading construct for regress because
the sort of people who understand how to manipulate people and
power will be attracted to the unaccountable power that exists
in the Presidency.  Unless the people are willing to hold their
Presidents to account it seems to me that they are making the 
role of the President be just the sort of one that an aspiring
totalitarian dictator would want to claim for him or herself. 

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050713/19c4b744/attachment.html>