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

[Brett Paatsch]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> The Constitution says the standard for impeachment is "high crimes and
> misdemeanors" which apparently does not include perjury, given
> Clinton's performance. If perjury (i.e. lying in a report to congress
> required by the above referenced authorization on use of force in Iraq)
> is not to be included as an applicable "high crime or misdemeanor"
> (perjury is in fact a felony, which is higher than a misdemeanor, but
> that apparently doesn't matter if you are a democrat who feels the pain
> of his interns), then you are going to have to pursue treason or
> breaking his oath of office (if you tried the second, you'd have to
> impeach most every elected official).

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. 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.  

Don't you think that if the President, Vice President and Secretary of 
Defence, were impeached, assuming for the moment the impeachment
was successful because it was well founded, that that fact would send
a very powerful political message of hope and healing across the 
country and around the world, in that justice would be seen to be done. 

Brett Paatsch