I was attempting to fit your analogy into the situation that some claim poses a basis for impeachment proceedings.
To assert that a person who says "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" is lying requires a showing that the person KNOWS that Iraq does NOT have weapons of mass destruction. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone KNEW that Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction. To convert "I'm almost certain" into "I know for sure" is an exaggeration, but I'm unsure that it is a lie. Even if lying is an impeachable offense (is it?), I don't think that sort of over-confidence is the same as converting "I'm certain it is not so" into "I'm certainit is so." Those looking for impeachable offenses ought to think instead of the lapses that have allowed, or at least failed to deal effectively with, looting, disappearance of nuclear materials, and general disorder in an "administered" territory. There's a lot more at stake in those matters. Moreover, they are matters of the present and future and thus inquiries into their status can do a lot more good. Jim Maule Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law Villanova PA 19085 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) (www.taxjem.com) Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com) Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com) Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com) >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/08/03 11:59AM >>> Prof. Maule writes: > For the police officer to KNOW that the information is false, the police > officer needs to KNOW that there is no meth in the basement. If the > police officer had looked into the basement, saw no meth, and then > alleged there was meth, that's a lie. If the police officer sees > evidence of meth from things seen outside the house, and by peering into > the windows, then it is not a lie to allege that there is information > suggesting the existence of meth. > > And, of course, if for months on end the world debates whether the > warrant should be issued, it leaves plenty of time to clear the basement > of meth. Comment: I stated that "A police officer swears out an affidavit alleging certain facts KNOWN by him to be FALSE from his intelligence sources." (emphases provided). You are changing the facts of the hypothesis. The police officer could knowingly swear to false statements. For example, the informant said that there was no meth, but the police officer swears that his reliable informant said that there was. Francisco Forrest Martin
