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

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
> 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. 

Of course, and every word of that oath when it is sworn to or affirmed
is open to the understanding of the person making the oath or
affirmation, i.e. "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is'
is..."

> 
> 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. 

The executive is the commander in chief of the armed forces, and has
war powers of his own beyond the power to declare war that the Congress
has. Primarily so the President can do his job when congress is not in
session, it is also to prevent a treasonous faction from hamstringing
the nation (as the southern states attempted by walking out of congress
in 1860, leaving it in a rump state) by rumping or filibustering.

How the President prosecutes his executive job is beyond the authority
of congress to second guess. If they pass specific legislation that
mandates specific things and he doesn't do them, or else they prohibit
certain things and he does them (as was the case during the Iran-Contra
issue in the Reagan era), the congress can then build a case against
him.

> 
> 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.

There is no such case, however Vietnam comes very close in that the
Tonkin Gulf Incident is widely regarded as a hoax, and furthermore, the
congressional authorization of force clearly states one of the two
goals of the use of force is to enforce all UN resolutions in Iraq (not
just those having to do with WMD), so there really is nothing to
dispute: Bush was doing what congress told him to do, not one bit more
or less. If Bush was relying more on what his invisible friend told him
more than the CIA when he advised congress that WMD was a problem (and
given the CIA's record, I would rather believe a hallucination), the
congress might feel they were snowed if Bush didn't clearly explain the
true basis of his convictions, but the fact is that only some UN
resolutions dealt with WMD, particularly the original resolutions
dealing with the first Gulf War and the cease fire agreement.

>   
> 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, 

Yeah, you don't testify before the SCOTUS, they only hear arguments
from party attorneys and amicus submitters, as well as overview the
record of lower court rulings.

In an impeachment, the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presides over
impeachment trials, but it is the Senate that is the jury and the
House's chosen representatives who are the prosecutors.

>  
> 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.  

This is questionable. As partisan as things are today over court
appointments, and the Bush v Gore ruling, the left is convinced that
whenever they lose, it is the 'conservative majority' being partisan,
while the right calls any loss legislating from the bench (which in
most cases it is, such as the eminent domain ruling the other day).
> > 
> > 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. 

At the time, Clinton and his allies were prosecuting executives and
military officers all over the country for having workplace
relationships. Some were consensual relationships, others were coerced.
The Clinton Administration policy was that any personal relationship
between a superior and persons below them was 'sexual harrassment'
because of the disparity of power between the two. Clinton even went so
far as to drag a retired admiral out of retirement so that he could be
prosecuted under the UCMJ for a consensual relationship with a
subordinate while on active duty years before. 

All of this is immaterial to what Clinton was impeached over, except to
illustrate the atmosphere that the Clintons promulgated in the American
workplace in the 1990's. Given this policy, when it was found that
Clinton may have violated this policy himself with a consensual
workplace sexual relationship with a subordinate, it was clear to many
that excuses that Kennedy, Roosevelt, and other past presidents had
affairs was immaterial to the fact that Clinton held others to a higher
standard than he held himself to. This hypocrisy (the only valid crime,
according to liberals) was obviously something to check into, but, like
many other allegations of Clinton behavior over the years, it was
covered up, except in this case, someone had it on tape. Linda Tripp's
taping of conversations with Lewinski put the lie to Clinton's denial
on nationwide television. While it was not court testimony, it was a
slap in the face to many. What was court testimony was when he
testified in the investigation of his coverup and treatment of Tripp,
and made the ill advised equivocation about the meaning of the word
'is'. This testimony was something that nobody could cover up, nobody
could deny rationally. The GOP had the goods as much as any Perry Mason
courtroom episode. It was the perjury before the grand jury, televised,
that he was impeached on.

Despite the claims of his apologists, it wasn't "about sex", it was
about perjury. There was no chance of a 'good faith' equivocation.


> 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. 

Yes and no. Clinton, you may recall, chose to bomb alleged al qaeda
bases (including a pharmaceutical plant) in order to deflect news
attention from the increasing allegations of his affair (the act of
using military force conflicted with his administrations long standing
policy of treating terrorism as a crime to be prosecuted). Killing
innocent people in order to avoid a PR scandal, versus Bush acting in
good faith to defend the nation, and the argument can be made that
Clinton's actions were the more despicable and craven.

> 
> > 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. 

President Johnson led the nation through some six years of Vietnam,
using terrible tactics and strategy, refusing to win, and using heinous
rules of engagement that hamstrung the troops. Johnson got us into
Vietnam based on the fraudulent Tonkin Gulf Incident. Some say it was a
hoax, others say it was honest mistakes, but the fact stands it got us
into a war that the American people were not prepared to win, or at
least were not prepared to resist the propaganda of the enemy.

> 
> >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. 

Yes, McCain is a RINO. Bush Sr. was generally regarded as one until the
Gulf War, Arlen Specter is another, as was William Weld of
Massachusetts.

> 
> > 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. 

I am sure as well, but that isn't the point. The point is that the
polarizing partisanship here today keeps pushing things to the extreme.
Impeachment is about as extreme as you can get.


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com