What seems just a tad quaint to me and certainly an odd expression of 
values/concern is the comparison with Clinton and the repercussions for 
his lying about whether sex was sex or whether he got up to no good with 
an intern which was undoubtedly very sleazy but not exactly in the same 
category as taking the country to war.  Hmmmm.

OK -- I'll back off. There is undoubtedly a very good reason for all of 
this.

Sally

Virginia Maurer wrote:

> I think the question of deceiving the public to go to war has to be a 
> political question with a political solution, not a legal question 
> with a legal solution.
>
> There is an interesting logic to pick between the "treason" of a 
> presidential subordinate and the unpatriotism of a president.
>
> This whole thing appears not to be over, but I would not hold my 
> breath that Bush43's presidency is actually threatened by this. It 
> just will not sit at all well politically.
>
> Ginny
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Hawker" 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 11:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Impeachment
>
>
>> I am deeply troubled by the idea that the president, not the courts,
>> gets to define "national security" for legal purposes.
>>
>> We still don't know the real reasons for Bush's war in Iraq.
>>
>> But if we assume that Libby and Official A deliberately blew the
>> cover of a CIA to cover up those real reasons, and if we assume, as
>> some commentators have speculated, that at least one of the real
>> reasons was so that Bush could run for election in 2004 as a
>> successful "war president," then wouldn't the decision to go to war
>> be treasonous?
>>
>> Or could Bush avoid treason under these circumstances on grounds that
>> he believed winning the 2004 election was a matter of national security?
>>
>>
>> Norman Hawker, Associate Professor
>> Haworth College of Business
>> Western Michigan University
>> 1903 West Michigan Avenue
>> Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008-5420
>>
>>
>> On Nov 1, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Michael O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>>       Absent a legislative definition of national security within
>>> the realm
>>> of legislative authority, national security is defined by the
>>> President.
>>> The President, by definition, can not violate the statute on
>>> revelation of
>>> a secret agent's identity.
>>>       Accordingly, your question presupposes that Official A was
>>> acting
>>> without clear direction from the President to so act.
>>>
>>>       I am curious, while there are many unflattering things that
>>> might be
>>> said about the Bush43 administration, how is it you see that
>>> supposition as
>>> probable?  Admittedly, generically, treason is improbable in most
>>> contexts
>>> related to war.  This particular fact context, especially as
>>> embedded in
>>> the Bush43 administration, to my eyes invites the conclusion
>>> presidential
>>> directive far more than treason.
>>>
>>>       Also, treason is quite hard to prove, which is one reason the
>>> impeachment option exists.  The proof requirements of treason are
>>> partially
>>> defined in the USA Constitution at Article III, section 3.
>>>
>>>       In whole, Article III, section 3 reads:
>>>       "Section. 3.
>>>       Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
>>> levying War
>>> against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
>>> Comfort.
>>> No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
>>> Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
>>>       The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of
>>> Treason,
>>> but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or
>>> Forfeiture
>>> except during the Life of the Person attainted."
>>>
>>>       In this instance, I doubt there were two witnesses to the -same-
>>> overt act.  That is, Official A in a conversation with a single person
>>> merely committed the crime of telling that single person the
>>> identity of a
>>> covert agent.  And, if that disclosure was pursuant to a presidential
>>> directive, then it was not a crime.
>>>
>>>       But, will that honorable man, Brutus, fall on his sword?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/USA_Constitution.htm
>>> Treason appears in
>>> Art. I, sec. 6
>>> Art. II, sec. 4
>>> Art. III, sec. 3
>>> Art. IV, sec. 2
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
>>> Finance, Banking, & Law Department        Editor, Journal of Legal
>>> Economics
>>> College of Business Administration        (402) 554 - 2014 voice
>>> fax (402)
>>> 554 - 3825
>>> Roskens Hall 502                    www.AAEFE.org
>>> University of Nebraska at Omaha
>>> www.JournalOfLegalEconomics.com
>>> Omaha  NE  68182
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> (402) 554 - 2823 voice  fax (402) 554 - 2680
>>> http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm
>>>
>>
>