Iraq and legality again Re: [extropy-chat] ProfessorBeingSuedOverAnti-Agi

[Brett Paatsch]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
>> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>  
>> To impeach the President and let's say the Vice President as well,
>> and perhaps the Secretary of Defence, why would you also need to
>> impeach "most every elected official" ? 
>> 
>> I am sceptical of this particular claim of yours Mike. I wonder if
>> you are just suggesting that most every elected official breaks their
>> oath, in which case I would reply that that is really a separate
>> matter when one is considering the elected position of the US
>> President. 
> 
> The claim is valid because of the nature of the oath taking. Any
> senator or congressman who has voted for any gun control law, for the
> Patriot Act, the REAL ID Act (all 100 Senators), or any law claiming
> authority under the commerce clause that does not strictly regulate the
> practice of trade between the states (see US v Lopez for some good
> writing on this) such as the Gun Free School Zones Act (which was
> struck down in the above case for this reason), violates their oath of
> office when they pass unconstitutional laws.
>
 > They will all state that it was their good faith belief that the bill
> they were passing was constitutional. The oath of office states the
> office holder will "protect and defend the Constitution of the United
> States from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Actually, in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8, of my hardcopy printout of
the US Constitution, the link to which you provided earlier, it says of
the President:

' Before he enter into the Execution of his Office, he shall take the 
following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States." ' 

I don't know in what other documents other oaths for lesser offices
of public trust might reside, perhaps it is even the case that the oath
for lesser offices are derivative of this one, which in itself would be 
instructive ? Nonetheless, I think it might well be significant that the
drafters and of the Constitution saw fit to have a specific clause 
relating to the Presidential Oath. A Presidential Oath, is, and must
be, a personal Oath of honour of the most powerful executive in the
land to the people of that land. 

> By passing
> unconstitutional law, they themselves become domestic enemies of the
> Constitution and should be removed from office. However, the courts
> allow the 'good faith' defense in cases such as this.

I wonder if the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), like
me, might take a particularly firm view in the case of a President, and 
especially in the case of a President that actually did send in the armed
forces which should be the most serious and last choice of such a 
Constitutionally empowered and people entrusted Executive. 

Has the SCOTUS ever, to your knowledge, allowed the good faith
defence in a case such as this.(ie. a US President, having deployed the
armed forces to invade a UN member state for weapons of mass
destruction that were subsequently not found) I, for one, cannot recall
a case such as, or substantially like this, but perhaps my understanding
of US history is letting me down.
 
> Because of this, if  we apply this to Bush and Cheney, if  they
> testify in court that they honestly felt they were upholding their oath
> of office, and honestly believed that the intelligence was bad (based on
> the fact that it has been so bad for so long) and that Saddam DID have
> wmd (which is still, btw, unresolved given the shipments to Syria just
> prior to the invasion and Saddams history of sending his weaponry to
> other nations - he sent his fighter jets to Iran during the first Gulf
> War) in spite of the claims of an intel agency with a very shoddy
> record, then they walk.

Well of course if they are innocent and did act in good faith then they
should walk.

However,  if they testify in the SCOTUS say, I'm not sure that's the
appropriate forum but whatever it is that's a detail, that they honestly
"felt" they were upholding their oath of office, and honestly believed 
that the intelligence was bad (based on the fact that it had been bad
for so long),  -- the SCOTUS would presumably be empowered 
then to check the facts that were asserted by the defendants against
other facts that might be presented perhaps by intelligence officers
or other citizens of the United States including military executives.  
 
All of this would be an excellent process to go through in my view
to underscore the immense importance that the United States 
supreme court places in oath taking and in justice being done in 
any case, even if the President, Vice President and Secretary of
Defense "walk", their characters will have been examined and 
shown to be clean if they are.  

> To hold a new standard to Bush and Cheney would require that
> standard be held to all members of congress. Not that I mind, I'd
> love to see elected officials get booted from office every time a 
> law they sponsored or voted for was ruled unconstitutional. I've 
> been advocating such for quite a while.

I think a lot of people that, as they say, hunger and thirst for justice
might like that too :-)

> People on the opposite side of the argument in
> this list, though, have previously opposed this idea, though it is
> illustrative that they may now support the concept...
> 
>> An oath
>> breaking major of a minor town is not as serious as an oathbreaking
>> President with the power to appoint judges and send military forces
>> into harms way. Yet the flip side is that an oathbreaking President
>> perceived to be an oathbreaker that had gotten away with it would
>> likely encourage others at lower levels of public trust to emulate
>> the practice and likewise hope to escape be held to account by the 
>> people.  
> 
> Sure, but that was a can of worms that was opened by Clinton, and
> every Democrat in congress chose to cover his ass, so the damage 
> is already done, there is no public trust right now to defend or protect.

Is that a fact? I don't really understand the impeachment process 
quite well enough obviously, as an Australian I confess I wasn't paying
all that much attention to the legal consequences of Clinton deciding
to US the Presidential office as an adjuct to gained sexual favours from
an intern, but I suppose I should have, it is pretty unsavory when one
thinks of it.  Not, however, anywhere near by a country mile, as wrong
though as sending one's nations armed service men and women into
harms way on a pretext or a lie. 

> Any attempt by Democrats to impeach Bush would just be seen as
> partisanship. 

As a matter of fact I am not a Democrat. You are not a Democrat
so far as I know so if we can countenance it as a possible path for
a higher purpose then I am sure others, probably including card 
carrying Republicans might too, especially once the thing got 
rolling. 

>Those in his own party most likely to support such an
> attempt are regarded as RINOs - Republicans in name only, so 
> they are generally democrats in conservative states.

I first saw the term RINO only recently in The Australian, interestingly
it was used in relation to the new US Ambassador to Australia and
in relation to Senator John McCain, both Republicans, and both men
who have served their country in battle as I understand it. 

> Impeaching Bush would only
> deepen the rancor and divisiveness in this nation.
 
I wonder about that. 

I certainly have no doubt that the US could find many capable
men and women for that matter to hold the Presidency, the 
Vice Presidency and the Secretary of Defence positions. 

So the process of impeachment need not necessarily impact
upon the real need to address appropriately the separate 
question of what is best to do on the ground in Iraq. 

In fact I have some ideas that could be useful in Iraq and
in optimally reforming the UN but I am not sure that this is
the right time or that the world with the current US President
in the white house is one in which I want to voice them. 
 
I did try, on this list, with my peers as it were, to articulate a
game theoretic way to avoid the meat grinding and it was to
no avail, so I have learned that timing matters and the people
to whom one conveys ideas must themselves have enough of
a handle on the world in which they live to be able to weight
those ideas. There was little point me talking about the UN
Charter if no one understood or read it in the audience I was
talking too.  I want to learn from my mistake and I want others
to as well. Let us not be in a position where we cannot
contribute ideas towards solutions because we do not understand
another great achievement in the history of civilization which is the
US Constitution. 

Regards,
Brett Paatsch