Can George Bush be Sectioned?

mms

sometimes
i was thinking - now george bush has admitted that invading iraq was a mission from god who had talked to him, is it possible to start proceedings against him on the grounds that he is mentally ill and a danger to others and himself ?
What do you think the chances are - also if an american citizen started shooting iraqi's on american soil and used the excuse he was following orders from god after george bush - would he have a defense there?
 

mms

sometimes
DigitalDjigit said:
The same logic is never applied to individuals and governments or people in power.
it would be interesting to try now that he's finally admitted it.
Where do you think that statement actually leaves it all
is it just a little weapon of hyperbole now it's out in the open or something more important ?
 

qwerty south

no use for a witticism
good question

he is possibly according to uk 1983 mental health act "a danger to other people" and thus sectionable (if he still hold these beliefs)...
 

satanmcnugget

Well-known member
he has now officially denied it, peeps


shld be interesting to see how this plays out


i wldnt count on him being sectioned, though...pretty good quote from Penny Rimbaud i put on my blog regarding the power dynamics of sectioning:

"Since the beginning of time, the concept of mental illness has been used as a powerful political weapon against those seeking or promoting social change. Broadly speaking, madness is a fiction with which those in authority are able to dismiss those who challenge their supremacy. Terms like schizophrenia, neurosis and paranoia are pseudo-scientific labels that have as much meaning as any particular, or not so particular, individual chooses to give them. There never has been any clinical evidence for any of these 'conditions'...

The label of mental illness can be slapped onto any individual, from unwanted relatives to social critics who, for rejecting imposed conditions, are seen as nuisances and trouble-makers. Further, to avoid the embarrassment of having to criminalize those who are clearly not criminals, the State has at its command a far cleaner tool for the silencing of dissidents: sectioning or compulsory hospitalization, a method by which the authorities can imprison anyone whom two doctors are prepared to diagnose as mad...

Sectioning enables the State to take anyone off the streets and imprison them indefinitely without any crime having been committed. It also enables them, within the letter of the law, to torture and maim prisoners while suffering no real fear of exposure."
 
C

captain easychord

Guest
satanmcnugget said:
Broadly speaking, madness is a fiction with which those in authority are able to dismiss those who challenge their supremacy. Terms like schizophrenia, neurosis and paranoia are pseudo-scientific labels that have as much meaning as any particular, or not so particular, individual chooses to give them. There never has been any clinical evidence for any of these 'conditions'...

can rimbaud really argue that schizophrenia is entirely constructed by institutions? have you ever met someone with this condition?
 

Rambler

Awanturnik
Penny Rimbaud's half-reading of Madness and Civilisation aside, I think it's kind of tricky to section someone just for having religious conviction. a) isn't that just playing out Foucault's assertions anyway, that 'madness' is socially constructed, and b) you're going to have to section a hell of a lot of people, and c) can you imagine the furore if the tables were turned, and governments started sectioning imams, or rabbis, because they were deemed to be mentally ill?
 
C

captain easychord

Guest
Rambler said:
Penny Rimbaud's half-reading of Madness and Civilisation aside,

that 's exactly what i was thinking, he sounds like he skimmed through "the idiot's guide to foucault" once upon a time.
 

satanmcnugget

Well-known member
have you ever met someone with this condition?

yes, of course, many...one of my best buddies has SOMETHING that has earned him the label...i think the point that Rimbaud, Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari and that lot are making is that there really isnt much clinicla evidence for this "disease," and that if psychiatry were held up to the same light that other sciences are, it would fail VERY badly...it is a pseudo-science at best and really shldnt be invested with the power to imprison people so handily

my friend is 100 percent harmless...quite capable of caring for himself and others...he often walks around exhibiting what othes wld call weird behaviour and occasionally entertains strange ideas...but he isnt the least anti-social or harmful to those around him...and yet he has been imprisoned several times in his life for being ill...do they know exactly what he is ill with? nope...so, they call it schizophrenia

most of the people who are afflicted with this strange "disease" are quite capable of looking after themselves...and they shldnt be sectioned off...those who are a danger to themselves and others (which is quite rare, and no greater than those labelled "sane") are obviously in need of care, not imprisonment...those who cannot look after themselves are usually afflicted with a far stranger disease: poverty and its attendant alienations


we are mostly just talking in the wind, though...Bush isnt going to be sectioned off...he's extremely affluent and powerful and is allowed to entertain strange ideas and even kill others as a result of them...but, if you or i walked around acting like a religious zealot (and a priest or Imam is not necessarily a zealot, by the way), we wld be seriously risking getting locked away

dont believe me? put theory to the test...go around ranting and raving about how God told you to do something anti-social and attack others who dont share your beliefs...see how long before you get locked up...laffs!!!!
 
Top