Talk:Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush/Archive 1

POV rant

This entire article is nothing more than an Original Research, POV rant and should be deleted. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.85.195.227 (talk • contribs)

I just saw a program on TV (C-SPAN perhaps. I didn't notice.) with a panel that included Congress members, John Dean (of Watergate fame), and others debating the impeachment of Bush. This is real and gonna get realer. WAS 4.250 00:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree - this piece is nearly exclusively POV, and as a result, has no place on Wikipedia. Mhking 02:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly these comments are based upon opinions that were formed without reading the provided sources. Too bad. Nomen Nescio 02:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You want discussion? No problem. All of the sources cited are POV sources that have a proven anti-Bush bias. As a result, they have no place on Wikipedia. There are certainly empirical resources out there (including stories in the past week of an entire town in Vermont which passed a resolution calling for the President's impeachment), but those are what belong there -- not POV blogs and other opinion-driven pieces. I would strongly ask that a POV warning be attached to this article, barring it's complete rewriting to reflect a NPOV. Mhking 02:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why analysis by lawyers is POV? Have you read the sources? Nomen Nescio 02:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Counterpunch, The Nation, CommonDreams, Democracy Now, The Center for American Progress, AlterNet, Human Rights Watch, TruthOut, IPS News, the Global Policy Forum, Human Rights First, Tom Dispatch, and the several blogs you have cited are all opinion-based sources that do not offer empirical news, and have a demonstrated bias against Bush, his administration and his policies. In addition, many of the mainstream newspaper sources you cite are opinion-based or editorial articles that, once again, do not cite empirical news, but provide the opinion of the writer. Now, that being said, NONE of those sources have any place in an article that seeks to be NPOV. I placed the {{bias}} tag at the top to request third parties to look at the piece and to provide their opinion. You, by reverting the tag, are hampering that process. Mhking 02:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that because the articles are not written by FOX News they are POV? And do you claim that since the articles are published by sites you claim are POV the legal analysts are not trustworthy? Nomen Nescio

No, I am saying that because they are opinion-driven articles, as opposed to news or non-opinion-driven pieces, that they have no place here. For each charge, there are certainly right-wing counterpoints out there, but those have no place on Wikipedia either. They should not have POV bias in any way, shape or form. You have 60-some-odd sources, and more than 2/3 of those are opinion-driven. Mhking 03:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect, please see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial,

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Nomen Nescio 03:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you -- would you be opposed to a third party (or parties) looking at it and providing input? Mhking 03:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you feel the need to ask for RFC, please do. However, if it is possible to discuss the matter and try to resolve it between us it would be better. Nomen Nescio 03:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned initially, I've got no problem with citing non-POV sources in this piece - I cannot deny that there have been calls for Bush's impeachment; but the overwhelming preponderance of POV-driven sources is what I take offense to here. There are plenty of places to cheerlead for or against Bush or anyone else's political agenda on the Internet. This should not be one of them. Mhking 03:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add other comments. As to POV or NPOV, that is not about discrediting sources. Opinion is allowed, as long as it is evident that it is opinion. NPOV only means that "All significant points of view are presented." Anyway, let's wait and see what others think. Nomen Nescio 03:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that, like the Movement to impeach George W. Bush, it is mostly about a POV. The difference is that this article doesn't have a NPOV in the acual writing, as a POV is clearly evident here, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Mason 03:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Reality

The reality, beyond any spin, is that the President has acted in ways that have caused people to say he should be impeached. Among these realities are the questionable wiretappings inside the United States, the invasion of Iraq based on lies, his refuting the Geneva Conventions and federal law relating to torture (a federal crime with no time limit), his extraordinary rendition of prisoners (torture by proxy), his illegal treatment of prisoners (detainees), his gross negligence in the Hurricane Katrina disaster, his participation in the leaking of classified information to cover up his invasion of Iraq lies, and all manner of accusations of abuse of power. WAS 4.250 03:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Reality or not, in this case, is immaterial. Opinion-driven pieces do not belong on Wikipedia. Mhking 03:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, are the accusations incorrect. Did the administration misrepresent the cause for war? Have detainees been tortured? Was Katrina horribly mishandeld? Does this administration assert broad war powers? In other words, are these allegations not based upon fact? Nomen Nescio 03:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What does "Opinion-driven pieces do not belong on Wikipedia" mean? Shall we delete God? WAS 4.250 14:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia description: "An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand. This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, in which very often there is an abundance of differing views and criticisms on the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts." The assertations here are presented as defacto fact, and not represented as the opinion of the writer. As I mentioned, my problem is that opinion is being presented as fact. Mhking 16:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are saying that the contents itself is correct but it should be better shown that it is not fact but opinion, feel free to show here what sentences you refer to. Furthermore, if you make suggestions how to improve these sentences to NPOV standard progress and have a constructive debate. Thank you. Nomen Nescio 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Rfc

I've come here via the Rfc. First off, I dislike President Bush and think that he has abused the power of the Executive branch. Despite my personal feelings, however, I think that certain passages of this article are not neutral point of view as written. Language needs to be inserted into some passages that indicates that certain points are merely alleged by critics. As a whole, however, the article is extremely well-sourced with verifiable sources that have presented the various rationales. This fact makes it difficult to claim no original research, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or Wikipedia is not a crystal ball violations. That said, editors of this article should remain vigilant to ensure that this article continues to adhere to these policies and NPOV. - Jersyko·talk 03:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading the edit comments I feel that Mhking thinks that NPOV means no biased sources. This is not correct, it only means that different views must be presented and the reader can decide what to think of it. See WP:NPOV:

• The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Feel free to read about Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles:

• An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.

Nomen Nescio 16:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Similarity of 2 pages

I just somewhere saw these 2 pages:

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

Rationale to impeach George W. Bush

What is the difference between the two? Is there one or is it just a double? --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Good question - I note that a number of text-items have been moved to this page from that one. Is there any logical reason for that, other than to move this part of the discussion away from the original page? Mhking 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It is wikipedia policy to start a subpage when an article is getting too long. One might debate whether including this in the original makes it too long. But I felt that this page, with the numerous sources which are necessary to address the invalid criticism by some editors, would make the original beyond acceptable. Furthermore, it is evident that discussing the movement is entirely different from discussing the reasons to impeach. Nomen Nescio 11:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I see. Thanks --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 14:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversial tag

I put that at the top in order to make certain that there are not wholesale pages (blanking of entire sections or otherwise) without conversation here. As on the other page, however, the inclusion of blog-material is definitely suspect. While some of the opinion-driven sections have been identified as such, others have not. Mhking 22:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please show what sentence is solely based upon blogs. As I asked earlier, if you feel a sentence is POV discuss it here and suggest improvement. To simply state the article is POV without substantiating your assertion is not constructive. Nomen Nescio 11:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Case-in-point -- your reference #6 (Wiretapping probably impeachable offense): Each of the references cited are from opinion-based articles, yet the paragraph where that citation is presented is not presented as an "opinion." Please keep in mind that I understand and appreciate that this is a subset of the other article (Movement to impeach George W. Bush), but an encyclopedic article would not contain references of that sort without indicating that they are someone's opinion as opposed to presenting those items as empirical fact. Your personal jibe regarding Fox News the other day implies that a conservative point of view that is also presented as opinion in this same context (in your estimation) is invalid. Please do not misunderstand me -- my point is that this is not a soapbox, and should not be used as a bully pulpit to only present one side of the equation. I -- admittedly -- am not as well-versed or well-researched as you are in terms of specific articles (one problem is that time is at an extreme premium for me present), but that is no reason not to indicate opinions as just that: opinions, not facts. Mhking 14:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The NFSA is a law that was passed by Congress, not an opinion. Let's keep that straight, alright? Kevin Baas^talk 16:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I have no problem with that. There must be some articles that are not opinion-based that cite that, yes? Mhking 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly Mhking is talking about:

Such critics therefore believe that since the claimed legal authority is invalid, FISA has been violated, constituting a felony and as such an impeachable offense. (emphasis added)

To me the sentence starts with mentioning this is what critics believe. What part of this do you refer to when saying: "references of that sort without indicating that they are someone's opinion as opposed to presenting those items as empirical fact?" Nomen Nescio 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Slightly altered the sentence. Nomen Nescio 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

(re your most recent edit) Thank you. Yes, I'm being almost dense about it (admittedly). And yes, I'm probably more sensitive than most about it as someone who is admittedly libertarian (little "l"; though Bush has pissed me off royally of late), and more supportive of the Bush Administration than most. I've just been asking for some even-handedness and fairness overall - nothing more. Mhking 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If the current version is acceptable can you show another example? As you see, I am willing to discuss if you explain what the exact problem is. This is more constructive don't you think? Sincerely Nomen Nescio 00:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem - it will take me a bit of time (as I said earlier, time for me is at a premium these days), but I'll be happy to point others out. (case in point -- with the severe weather here in the southeast, my time tonight is about shot to hell) And yes, I agree that this is far more constructive. I've had less luck with that approach elsewhere on Wikipedia. Mhking 00:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the contents is no longer disputed and Mhking is working to resolve what is left of possible ambiguous sentences I will remove the POV tag.No major claim of POV remains AFAIK. Nomen Nescio 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

I removed a section on Hurricane Katrina, see this diff. The source cited did not mention Katrina once; indeed it is an article solely about Iraq and related disputes. If a credible source can be provided describing Bush's Katrina response as grounds for impeachment, feel free to re-add the section. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the above - there's a vast gulf between an inept response and an impeachable offense. The things that have been bandied about are Iraq, wiretapping, and (if you ask Pat Buchanan) immigration policy. bd2412 T 05:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Oddly enough, a 5 minute search on google resulted in numerous articles asking for impeachment following Katrina. So I restored it with sources. Whether the call to impeach is warranted is another matter. Feel free to add comments dismissing Katrina, or any other argument, as grounds for impeachment. Nomen Nescio 11:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't find any sources I considered credible...all those seem like online-only magazines. I don't think such sources improve the image of the project. However, at least there is now some mention of Katrina as grounds. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of powers

I noticed this entry was changed:

These have been used to justify the aforementioned policies. In effect, this is about assertions of inherent power in the executive to override constitutional, international, congressional limitations, and judicial limitations.

I am confused. What part of the sentence is incorrect or not substantiated by sources? Nomen Nescio 16:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• What is the sentence even supposed to mean? It seems to me that the question is whether Bush's actions have overridden such limitations -- crticis argue that they have and do, while supporters argue that Bush's actions were within whatever limitations exist. I rewrote the section to attribute the two views to the two parties, which the sentence above does not do. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Then the question is what limitations exist? Some would argue that the consitution grants all power to the executive, and america is based on rule of person, rather than rule of law. Others would argue the contrary. That is the main controversy, when you remove all the specious rhetoric. The constitution is pretty clear tho, so i have no idea how we can derive the case of the administration from their presumed source of authority. Kevin Baas^talk 18:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

FISA

Clearly Bush's supporters and critics are in disagreement on whether he had violated the law, and nobody who is in a position to deliver an authoritative statement (i.e. a court of law) has ruled on the issue to my knowledge. So it seems inappropriate to record the statement as undisputed fact; instead I have attributed it specifically to his critics. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush's supporters, in congress at least, seem to be in agreement that he violated the FISA law. They argue that as commander in cheif, the president has the constitutional authority to break laws. In addition, the FISA law is very simply: domestic wiretaps = get a warrant from the secret court. (<-notice the period) when "domestic wiretaps" is not equal to "get a warrant from the secret court", thermodynamic equilibrium is broken, and the system bifurcates into rule of law or rule of men. what's at issue is not whether it's against the law, anymore than whether 2+2=4 is in question. what's at issue is whether it's important that 2+2 make 4, as opposed to say 6 or 9. Kevin Baas^talk 20:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anything's at issue besides who says what, and how we can best represent those statements here. Anyway, take a look at it now and see what you think. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

hmm.. talking about who says what (it's important what the law says too, so many we should cite that?), didn't congress ask the federal government committee responsible for asking these questions, and didn't they give an answer? That's a pretty fricking authorative source, eh? Who can find it first? Kevin Baas^talk 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, i think it's beauutifull! I want to do carnal things with it. (sorry, i'm in a silly mood. honestly, i think it's great.) Kevin Baas^talk 21:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is unreasonable to suggest that only after a judge has ruled we can say FISA was violated. Example: if I steal a DVD I violate the law, no judge is needed to say that. Your argument is that a criminal that is not convicted by a judge has not violated the law. Or better yet: a criminal is he who gets caught (convicted). An odd statement to say the least. Clearly, the President has violated FISA, and all legal analysis to date says the same: this program is not compatible with US law. However, the administration has suggested arguments for why violating FISA in this case would be legal. The question is not whether FISA was violated, but if that is legal. Nomen Nescio 23:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In this case you are incorrect. In the United States the presumption of innocence is one of the hallmarks of our legal system. If you steal a DVD you are not guilty of violating any laws until you have been found guilty by a court of law. Likewise, the POTUS is not guilty of violating FISA until some authoritative body has concluded so.---RWR8189 23:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying anybody is guilty. But your position is that without a judge and jury no crime can be committed. Tell that to victims of the violators of the law that were not apprehended. So, as long as nobody catches the criminals these victims were not murdered, not stolen from, not raped, et cetera. No judge, no crime. Nomen Nescio 00:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the DVD bit is a rather false analogy...however, your point is correct in that the argument is not about whether the text of the FISA was violated/"circumvented" but rather whether the law applies at all. I'm not sure that "violated" is the best term to use since presumably if the law did not apply in the first place, it was not violated -- but I can't think of any particular phrasing that would be more neutral. Anyway, so long as the passage sets out clearly from the outset that there is a dispute over whether the action was illegal I think it is fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Nomen Nescio 00:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We live in a system of tripartite governmental authority. Currently, the excutive branch is controlled by Bush. It's Bush's position that FISA is trumped by his authority over international issues / national security, in that, he contends that it was international calls relating to national security which were monitored. Whether you agree with that position or not, it is true that under our Constitution, each of the three branches do have some areas of exclusive purview. Bush contends that this is one of the executive branch's such areas. For you to conclude that he is wrong, you are taking sides against him and are being POV. Bush's position is that FISA in this instance, exceeds its authority under the Consitution in that in passing it, Congress has stepped into an area of exclusive presidential authority. Simply put, the President asserts that beyond keeping Congress informed - which he did, he is not bound to obey FISA in these instances and FISA unconstitutionally constricts presidential power and hence, attempting to obey it in these instances, would violate his oath and duties as president. It is a forceful assertion of presidential perogative, but one that does not on its face have any evidence of mens rea attached. That being the case, there is no prima facia case that a crime has been committed. This FISA twist is merely an attempt by the Democrats and their allies to misuse the impeachment process for political gain. Merecat 11:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Odd statement: "an attempt by the Democrats and their allies to misuse the impeachment process for political gain." Wasn't there a time a certain political party hounded a President for cheating on his wife and trying to conceal that? Nomen Nescio 12:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed there was. And the fact that you throw that in my face, even though I have nothing to do with that, suggests that you are trying to turn this page into a battleground, which you should not be doing - see WP:NOT. Merecat 12:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you feel offended and I apologize for that. But all I wanted to do is show you that the argument is flawed. If you accuse Democrats of partisan actions, you should say the same of the Republicans in the Clinton impeachment. Furthermore, contrary to the Clinton case, we now have several actions that at least warrant further investigations, as they might be impeachable offences. To dismiss any inquiry is premature, nobody really knows if a case can be made. That is why investigation is needed, but for some strange reason even that is impossible and considered partisan. Nomen Nescio 12:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This particular article is about Bush, not Clinton. Please stay on topic. Merecat 04:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. Kevin Baas^talk 15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgive the trolling remark. It's how I felt but does not neccessarily reflect the nature of your actions. I apologize. Now back to this long heated argument that isn't really about the content of the page...

You said "It's Bush's position that FISA is trumped by his authority over international issues / national security, in that, he contends that it was international calls relating to national security which were monitored." By using a grammatical conjunction, you stated two separate positions as one. The first position was that a person's "authority" trump a "law". However, the American government is to put it in the words of one of its founders "a government of laws and not of men". And the president must operate within the law just as much as a bum on the street, regardless of what the situation might be. There are laws that enable him to act as he needs to in emergency situations. Laws are written carefully so as not to to impede them. For instance, with FISA, one does not need to obtain a warrant before wiretapping domestic calls. One can wiretap and then obtain a warrant after the fact. In any case, in america therei is no "authority" that trumps laws, on any account.

Regarding the second position, wherein bush claims that it was international calls. If the wiretaps did not fall under the scope of FISA, it would be a non-issue. IT is an issue. what he claims is not what's important in determining the legitimacy, but what he does, what is known to have been done. and it is known that domestic calls were wiretapped wihout warrants. So neither position holds. Kevin Baas^talk 17:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

regarding bush's interpretation of the constitution - it is the exclusive right and duty for the supreme court to check and balance other branches by deciding whether a law is unconstitutional when a particular case involving the law is brought to their court. It is a judicial power, not an executive one. Kevin Baas^talk 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, as politely as I can say this, I'll simply say that you are misinformed regarding the power of the president in regards to this FISA/terrorist wire tap issue. Please read this [1]. Pay careful attention to this:

Chairman Specter: I think the thrust of what you are saying is the President is bound by statute like everyone else unless it impinges on his constitutional authority, and a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?

[No response.]

Chairman Specter: Everybody agrees with that.

Merecat 02:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Consider this:

• As to the administration's statutory argument in support of the NSA operation, Kris, an expert on FISA, was clearly not persuaded.[2]
• In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order.[3]
• One of the witnesses expected to testify, David Kris, is a former Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice, where he handled national security issues. In an internal e-mail exchange that was released through a Freedom of Information Act request, he stated, "Claims that FISA simply requires too much paperwork or the bothersome marshaling of arguments seem relatively weak justifications for resorting to 'constitutional powers' in violation of the statute." He added that he did "not think Congress can be said to have authorized the NSA surveillance" via the authorization for military force in Afghanistan. "Many legal and security experts have rejected the administration's claims that the warrantless NSA eavesdropping program was both legal and necessary," said Lisa Graves, ACLU Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy.[4]

Nomen Nescio 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"End Notes" style of links reduces readability

As per this message left for Jimbo, I am deeply troubled by the "end notes" style of links in this article. I am convinced that this style of external links is degrading the quality of the wiki. Merecat 08:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First, this is rather harsh, you might have suggested improvemnent on the talkpage before making this statement, Second, every reference the article points you to (when more than one is available) supports the same information, there are multiple sources for one statement to address the assertions of POV-NOR-RS-et cetera, which have now even resulted in the AfD tag without even discussing the alleged POV. Nomen Nescio 11:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? My comment is a suggestion, yes? I feel that it is. Merecat 11:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"I am deeply troubled," to me does have a different connotation than,"could you redo the notes for the following reasons?" Beyond that, placing a comment on Jimbo's page is also a rather "enthousiastic" move. Nomen Nescio 11:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel you are being overly and needlessly critical of me on a personal basis. Please stop. Merecat 11:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Have explicitly identified who says what. Hope this satisfies those editors fearing the possible ambiguity. Nomen Nescio 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am stating that accessing sources for verification is more clumsy with the style of end-note links used in this article, in my opinion. Also, Nescio, please remove the Netherlands flag from your signature - it slows down page loads. Sometimes the .svg file for that does not load promptly and the whole page slows down. Please consider this. Merecat 16:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

end notes is standard policy. if you dont like it, discuss it on the policy page (admittedly i don't know where it is) that svg is tiny, you've got to be kidding! Kevin Baas^talk 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

Could those that insist the article is POV at least point out what sentence exactly is POV? In other words, please discuss in stead of asserting. Furthermore, how does one make an article about certain political views NPOV?. Nomen Nescio 13:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I already asked for this at Merecat's talk, if he doesn't respond in 24 hours or so I'd say remove the tag. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see a nice list of POV complaints here. Merecat 18:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked through that page thoroughly, and, ignoring for a moment that that the content of that page is not on this one, I did not find any statements on that page pointing out what sentence is POV, or even refering to any content at all, for that matter. I don't think you understand what you are being asked here. We are not looking for broad accusations. I can arbitrarily assert that the Mathematics article is POV, but that assertion doesn't really do anyone any good. It is just as easy to make broad accusations about one article as any other, and it is as useless as it is easy. The tag itself is a broad assertion, and any broad assertions/accusations in addition to it are completely redundant. One might just as well post a hundered copies of the tag on the talk page. But you see the point is that that's completely meaningless. What sentence, in what paragraph, is inherently POV? What makes it POV? Is there a word or grammar problem? Is it missing a citation? How would you suggest one make it NPOV? Kevin Baas^talk 19:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, see below. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I see exactly one specific complaint (made by a number of people) about the article -- that its title is inappropriate. So let's work on that, and then the tag can be removed. BD2412 suggested Rationales provided by persons advocating the impeachment of George W. Bush; how do people feel about that? It is a little ugly but seems to get the point across. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... this is a tough question. I think the current title is a fairly good title given all the possibilities, but that's not to say there can't be a better one - just that it will be more difficult to find. Consider for example a few titles that might be considered shorter and/or simpler versions of the title above suggested: "Arguments for impeach...", "Why people want to impeach..." - this is too editorial and informal - not titles for an encyclopedia, and "arguments" make it like a debate, when really it is legal grounds. However, "Grounds for impeachment..." seems to sound too strong. The word "Rationale" is, i think, a word that captures all the nuances very well; it's well suited. It says "This is their way of thinking", and "This is what leads them to their conclusion", and "This is why people say this should happen".

Rationale: 1. Fundamental reasons; the basis. 2. An exposition of principles or reasons.

All these things considered, the long and unweildy title suggested above seems to me to be the leading alternative right now. Kevin Baas^talk 19:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the main change that needs to occur is that the new title needs to attribute the rationale to the people who are doing the advocacy; without such the article appears to be coming from thin air, or the rationales seems to be the work of Wikipedia editors. (Also changed rationale-->rationales to emphasize that the reasons come from diverse sources and are not held in common.) Another suggestion: Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Call me stupid, but how many people opposing impeachment advance a rationale to impeach? In other words, rationale ipso facto refers to proponents. Having said that, do suggest a new, yet succinct title since I now understand that the title is the only major POV-perceived part of the article. Nomen Nescio 03:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is to place some distance between the rationale and Wikipedia; it needs to be clear that Wikipedia has not produced rationales either for or against impeachment, we are merely reporting the rationales of others. It's certainly in the best interest of the article to come up with a new title, since it's safe to say that as long as it is at this title the POV tag won't come off. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest a succinct title. As long as opponents of this title introduce titles that take more than 3 pages (hyperbole) the subsitute clearly is not an improvement. Nomen Nescio 20:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, your constant rebutting of every comment which opposes this article, grows weary. Merecat 08:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Renaming article

Brainstorm! (add suggestions):

• Rational to impeach George W. Bush (original)
• Rationales provided by persons advocating the impeachment of George W. Bush (Chris' suggestion)
• Rationales of movement to impeach George W. Bush Kevin Baas^talk 20:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Reasons cited for seeking Bush's impeachment - from intro of Movement to impeach George W. Bush
• Bullet list of anti-Bush arguments
• Bullet list of pro-impeachment rationales
• List of anti-Bush, pro-impeachment rationales
• Anti-Bush, pro-impeachment, rationales
• WP:OR WP:POV anti-Bush screed
• Aggregated arguments for seeking Bush's impeachment
• Rationales seeking to impeach George W. Bush
• Rationales professed by movement to impeach George W. Bush
• Purported impeachable offenses of George W. Bush
• George W. Bush impeachment rationales of various leaders and organizations.
• Rationale for impeaching George W. Bush
• Rationale for seeking the impeachment of George W. Bush
• Reasons for impeaching George W. Bush
• Reasons for seeking the impeachment of George W. Bush

I think the last suggestion (and current title)"Rationales seeking to impeach George W. Bush"^{edited by Kevin Baas} is frankly awful - it makes it sound like it is the rationales themselves that are seeking impeachment. I think Reasons asserted by persons advocating the impeachment of George W. Bush, unweildy as it is, is the clearest and most NPOV option. bd2412 T 18:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• And why is the talk page at a different place than the article? ... Please, nobody move pages unless you know what you are doing as the results of failure can be ugly. Agree with BD, though, this doesn't resolve any of the concerns at the AFD (which are the main reason to move the article) while also making the title sound terrible. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed into Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Still not good but at least better than what it was. Now we can continue debating renaming the article. Nomen Nescio 19:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not fixed, since the history is now in the wrong place. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, oops, didn't think of that. Nomen Nescio 20:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A bit late perhaps, but I've added my tuppence worth above. Oh, and at the risk of being frivolous, if you spend too much time rearranging the words impeach and Bush, you're inevitable going to come up with Impeaches by The Presidents of the United States of America. Sorry. Daen 01:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

POV section titles

I have made some edits to correct what I saw as POV section titles. Any questions on this, let's talk here. Merecat 08:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected some of your edits and will explain.

• Nobody denies Bush has said the GC do not apply, in other words the GC are refuted
• Removing Katrina is odd, since somebody feels it is an impeachable offense. I appreciate you disagree, but Wikipedia is not about our believe, but what can be presented based on sources. Since clearly sources exist we should include it.
• Regarding FISA. You are well aware FISA was adopted following several transgressions involving wiretapping (similar to the current debate). Second, FISA is violated, If this is incorrect, please explain why the administration did not deny the violation of that law, but chose to say it was authorized to do so by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the Constitution (unitary executive).

Nomen Nescio 12:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush asserts that GC does not apply to unlawful enemy combatants. This is not the same as "refuting" [5] In fact, if you looked into it better, you'd see that Bush is correct. The Geneva Convention is only binding on signatory countries as they interact with each other. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners are not prisoners of war under GC, because they are irregular fighters, fighting against USA without the authority of their home countries. For them to be POWs, the would have to be a) from a country that has declared war on USA, b) lawfully authorized by that country to fight USA and c) each country must be a signatory to the GC. If all three conditions are not met, then these men are unlawful enemy combatants and have no rights under the GC. On the other hand, if you want to say that they are legitimate soldiers, then the fact that none of them were in their home country's military uniform when they were caught, makes them spies - and subject to being shot without trial. Think about that. Merecat 17:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. 1 Many detainees were not captured on the battlefield or even engeaged in combat. 2 Although this is the rationale advanced by the Bush administration many legal exp[erts (among which HRW) dispute the claim. So at best your assertion is open to disscussion, not fact. 3 The memo itself say refuting, but a header saying refuting the GC for Al Qaeda and Taliban is not an option. Nomen Nescio 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

I have re-directed this article to Rationales seeking to impeach George W. Bush

Merecat 08:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And I have fixed your cut-and-paste mvoe, please use the "move" button in the future. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:00 UTC (2006-04-04)

Does that mean editors are in agreement about this name? Can the POV tag go? Nomen Nescio 12:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Preventing edit war

Since no WMD have been found they6 do not exist. To claim that their non-existence has to be proven is not only a logical fallacy, it is the principal reason Iraq was invaded. It is impossible to prove a negative, and since the allegation is there are WMD the burden of proof is on the proponents of this claim. Until evidence says otherwise WMD do not exist. For comparison see alien lifeforms. Nomen Nescio 16:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got 3 problems with your statement: a) Bush never said we would find them, only that USA thought Iraq had them, b) USA has found proof that a program for WMD was under way and c) you presume that USA has released all WMD related finds to press. Since when does it become mandatory for such an assumption? Allegedly is the right word. Merecat 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Since when does it become mandatory for such an assumption? Innocent untill proven guilty. You are maling a mistake, unless evidence of WMD is shown their existence is allged, not their non-existence. Or could you explain how many years of not finding these weapons does it take before they do not exist? Maybe this will help, X accuses Y of being a thief. X says he is not, Y says, as long as you do not prove it you are allegedly innocent. Nomen Nescio 17:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing against your own assumptions, not against the facts. When you start adressing the actual facts, as exampled by my 3 point comment above, perhaps we'll make some progress. Merecat 23:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fact is no WMD have been found so this can only mean that their existence is alleged. No evidence of WMD in 2003 exists.~~

Do you even know the meaning of the word "fact"? A fact is a a datum which is asserted to be accurate as presented. In a good faith discussion, offered facts are presumed to be accurate, unless challenged and/or rebutted. What I am telling you is that you are only offering logical arguments, not facts. You have not presented a fact set which asserts that no WMD have been found. If and/or when you do, I'll be happy to challenge and rebut that in greater detail. For now though, the burden is on you to address the 3 points I raised here, which you have not. Merecat 23:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There are those who beg to differ on what the primary obstacles are to progress. But our progress (or lack thereof) in this discussion will not alter the progress of events. However, I hope that the progress of events will not fall upon deaf ears, as words so often do. I also hope that more progress will be made on the article. Kevin Baas^talk 23:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this support the fact there are no WMD found?

• Quote from Powell: "We had a good discussion, the foreign minister and I and the president and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."[6]
• Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.[7]
• Iraq hid from United Nations inspectors some preliminary plans to develop banned weapons, but a U.S. survey team has found no evidence of weapons stockpiles or active weapons-building programs, a newspaper reports.[8]

I will only agree to answer that, if you 1st answer this: If I show you some links - more recent links than those you shown here now - and these links tend to show some evidence of WMD/WMD programs, will you agree to "allegedly"? If yes, I will proceed, if no, then your mind is closed and this is not a discussion. Merecat 23:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what you think I am always willing to debate. Why am I stubborn, because people make assertions but then refuse to substantiate. So if you have evidence (not assertions) these weapons have been found there is no problem in adopting your "alleged." Nomen Nescio 00:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

since it violates FISA

This is clearly not proven. If the Bush administration view that the AUMF in affect modifies FISA holds up to legal scrutiny, then Bush did not violate FISA. Until this is proven, it is alleged.--RWR8189 00:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If an ambulances is caught speeding it violates the speeding linit. However, if it at that time is using signals that show there is anemergency the law authorizes this ambulance to do so. It still violates the law but it is given special status in which that law no longer applies. That is what I try to explain. This would mean that FISA was violated but if the arguments used are correct an the President was authorized it is not illegal. Nomen Nescio 00:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You still miss the point. The FISA statute states that such and such must be done except as authorized by statute This carves out a special exception in the law, and if the AUMF qualifies as such an exception FISA is never violated, the law just works the way it was intended to.--RWR8189 01:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy is inaccurate. Speeding laws do not apply to en-route emergency service vehicles. Merecat 01:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Which is exactlly what the assertion is, FISA does not apply because ..... Nomen Nescio 01:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what you been saying. You've been saying that the laws have been broken, but no penalty applies. However, Bush's position is that FISA does not trump his authority and in these instances, does not apply. Laws that do not apply, cannot be broken. Laws against public nudity do not apply to private locations removed from the public eye, at which there are no members of the public. Someone being nude in such a place, cannot be charged with public nudity.

FISA does not apply in these instances, ergo, Bush cannot have committed a crime, therefore, this cannot be an impeachable offense. To state unequivocally that it is, ignores the logic of the Bush position. Bush has only authorized wiretaps which are allegedly illegal, not which are illegal. He did authorize them but the issue of their legality is in dispute. Dems say "No!", Bush says "Yes!". That's what it boils down to. To say otherwise is POV. Merecat 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we are saying the same but are caught in a debate about semantics. Nomen Nescio 00:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the CRC's response to the DOJ letter for clarification. Kevin Baas^talk 16:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Rationales seeking to impeach George W. Bush

Please stop messing with the move/redirect to this new title: Rationales seeking to impeach George W. Bush. If you have questions, discuss them here. It's becoming chaos, trying to get that straightened out. Merecat 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this title is a misnomer. No rationale is seeking impeachment. Nomen Nescio 23:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "Rationales seeking to impeach George W. Bush" is equally valid as the sentence "Justifications seeking to explain crack addiction". Both are titles. And while both may not be optimal English, each one makes clear its point. Nomen, you've caused this trouble by POV pushing this screed in the 1st place. Most of the edits in the article and talk page belong to you. Are you obsessed with impeaching Bush? Merecat 23:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Since many believe impeachment should happen I fail to see why mentioning their arguments should be disallowed. As you have noticed I am the only editor that seriously tries to make improvements. The discrepancy between criticism and tring to help better the article in other editors is unfortunate. Nomen Nescio 23:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And your point is? We are talking about the title of the page here, not "disallowed" arguments. Merecat 23:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The title you propose is incorrect. Rationales are seeeking ... is just a misnomer. If you do feel the need it has to be Rationales for seeking ..... Nomen Nescio 23:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Read definition #2 [9]. Merecat 15:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Brillant

We now have two talk pages. You are doing great! Please do not hide behind a IP-adress, just sign in as you keep claiming that rationales are seeking impeachment.-- Nomen Nescio 23:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

new links regarding WMD = yes

"Iraqis from backgrounds such as Iraqi Police officers, Doctors, Engineers, Iraqi Govt. officials, farmers, tribesmen, etc. identified sites that contained WMDs. They explained in detail why WMDs were in these areas and asked the U.S. to remove the WMDs. Much of the WMDs had been buried in rivers (within concrete bunkers), and in the sewage pipe system. There were signs of chemical activity in the area (missile imprints, gas masks, decontamination kits, atropine needles, etc..) The Iraqis and my team had no doubt WMDs were hidden in these areas" [10] Merecat 01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Well here I can say 2,000 times, that the WMDs were in Iraq, and that they were used against Kurds in the north, and people in the south against Shia people, and these weapons were there up to the summer of the year 2002. When a natural disaster happened in Syria, a dam was collapsed, and Saddam said he wanted to do an air-bridge humanitarian aid to Syrian people, those who were flooded in the area. But that was not true..." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48647] Merecat 01:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"The tapes are extremely significant in that they prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that as of the year 2000, Saddam Hussein had a secret plasma program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, or "special bombs" as he calls them." [11] Merecat 01:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"As far back as 2003, Lt. Gen. James Clapper stated WMDs have been trucked to Syria. In April 2004, Jordan’s King Abdallah claimed the 20 tons of chemical weapons seized in Amman and belonging to al-Qaeda agents were manufactured in Iraq. WMD inspector David Kay and others said Syria acted as a depository for Saddam’s WMDs. Former Justice Department official John Loftus made a strong argument that significant deposits of WMDs are buried in Syria. Israeli Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon made similar statements in April 2004 and December 2005. Last month, FrontPageMag.com columnist Ken Timmerman detailed a briefing given by former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw confirming Russian involvement. Russian General Yevgeni Primakov oversaw an operation known as “Sarandar” (“Emergency Exit”), in which Spetsnaz and other Russian assets convoyed Saddam’s weapons across the Syrian border." [12] Merecat 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That is alot to read. Must have some time for that, so I'll get back to you tomorrow. At first glance this is indeed interesting. Thank you. Nomen Nescio 01:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Although it is odd it took years for these people to tell their story, and for whatever reason the Bush administration still officially stated these weapons were not found and probably will never be found, I admit you have a point. Therefore, would altering:

Both the cited Weapons of Mass Destruction[10]and the link with Al Qaeda[11] used as evidence against Saddam Hussein turned out to be non-existent.

into

The current position of the Bush administration is that both the cited Weapons of Mass Destruction[10]and the link with Al Qaeda[11], used as evidence against Saddam Hussein, have not been found and probably will not be found. Nevertheless, several commentators observe that weapons were found but this was overlooked by the official report. (your cites)

be a better description? Nomen Nescio 14:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Have used your suggestion to alter the edit. Hope you agree, otherwise let me know. Nomen Nescio 00:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

At least one of the links above is making a silly claim - that the organization charged with searching for WMDs was given concrete information about an undoubted WMD site which it did not investigate. The interviewee is asking us to believe that despite the huge political embarrassment of not finding WMDs the survey team refused to investigate these sites for no good reason rather than possibly avoid the most horribly embarrassing political admission in recent years? I don't think so. DJ Clayworth 15:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

title

I have moved the article back to Rationales to impeach George W. Bush because:

• Rationales seeking to impeach George W. Bush is a silly title - in my understanding of English, you may have a rationale for doing something but a rationale by itself cannot seek anything
• adding seeking to the title added nothing
• user:Merecat failed to fix double redirects created by the move
• while an article is on AfD, it is better not to move it about.

-- RHaworth 06:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Geneva Convention controversy

In my opinion this section is original research. It should let the reader know specifically who has used this argument as a rationale for impeachment. The word "impeach" does not appear in any of the cited sources.

What are the criteria for such a section being included in the article? My thought is that some notable person/organization must actually use the rationale. A news article saying "person X has called for impeachment based on Y" seems like enough to include Y,but without such a connection how could we justify keeping the section?

I realize other editors may have complaints based on other issues or other sections, but maybe we could use this particular section to help decide what should be in the article. Or should we just wait until the AfD is over? EricR 16:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The AfD is over, with no consensus - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationale to impeach George W. Bush. As for the GCC section, I agree that it is an WP:OR violation and should be deleted. Merecat 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The claims in this section look to be well verified. My argument is that there needs to be at least one more, that someone notable has used this as a rationale for impeachment. Maybe we could wait a bit to see if anyone else has an opinion? EricR 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of this section in this article is a defacto assertion that there are calls for impeachment because of Geneva convention issues. That basic premise must be verified and as of yet, it has not been. When this is verified via a citation to a reliable source, then the "verfiy" tag can come out, not until. Merecat 23:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for inserting the last sentence into this section. VFP has obviously called for impeachment and specificaly mentioned Geneva as a rationale. Conyers however (if i read things correctly) has always qualified his arguments as "possible" grounds for impeachment or "grounds for investigation." If this is true shouldn't the WP article make an effort to do the same? Is the article justified in saying that John Conyers and VFP hold the same position?

The ICRC and Human Rights Watch probably should be the organizations mentioned re: Geneva. There is a clear connection between impeachment, Conyers and the ICRC through the dem staffers report[13]. For my part, establishing such connections removes any objection to the section as original reseach. Is there a clear connection between the ABA, Council on Foreign or Joanne Mariner to Conyers or VFP re: Geneva?

I don't know that the {{verify}} tag needs to be in this section. Nomen Nescio has made considerable effort to verify the claims in the section, and is obviously responding to criticism of the article. EricR 16:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Conyers report:

Our investigation has found that while the allegations set forth in this Report rise to the level of impeachable misconduct by the President, the Vice President, and other high ranking officials within the Administration, more information and investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made concerning specific Articles of Impeachment. Nomen Nescio 21:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A statement which clearly calls for more investigation and does not commit Conyers to any "specific Articles of Impeachment." Much different from Ferner: "VFP is calling for Bush's impeachment because..." EricR 21:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Disregard, i commented before seeing you change. EricR 21:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

Is the current title acceptable or are there still suggestions to alter this. If not can the POV tag be removed? Nomen Nescio 00:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, if you don't stop doing things like this edit, which completely ignores the perfectly valid objection I raised with this edit then there is no way I will ever agree with you about removing the NPOV tag. Because of what you are doing here, I am having a very difficult time keeping an assumption of good faith towards you. I have raised specific concerns on talk regarding the "verify" tag. You are transgressing by removing it without 1st making a sincere effort to reach consensus with me about that. However, if you demonstrate good faith by re-inserting the "verify" tag into the Genenva Convention section, I will accept that you are sincere in your NPOV tag question. If not, then I will take it that you are only making a cursory inquiry so as to provide an ostensible basis for doing whatever you want. Suffice it to say, I am beginning to sour on your approach here. Merecat 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The tag is placed because you assert the GC are not reason for impeachment, or at least no source is present. I provide the source therefore ytour tag can be removed, as you yourself said: "When this is verified via a citation to a reliable source, then the "verfiy" tag can come out, not until." At least that is what I thought. However, I will return it so you yourself can remove it since your request for sources has been fulfilled.

As to the quality tag. This of course can be removed since POV is the only issue that has been raised. Nomen Nescio 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Consitutionality of Invasion

If this is used as grounds for impeachment is it possible to add a source saying so? Otherwise this is unsupported and must go. Nomen Nescio 15:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The section references both the book Warrior King and the lawsuit. --The Cunctator 02:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it's in the constitution, which is a legal document. We have legal analysises by the congressional reseach committee. We cite them and what they said. Why can't we site Thomas Jefferson and crew and what they said?

But on a more realistic note, there are other issues of constitutionality involved in the invasion of iraq. There is the issue of the supremecy clause "...all international treaties entered into under the authority of the united states..." are considered part of the "supreme law of the land", which the president is bound to uphold by oath of office just as he's bound to uphold the constitution itself. The war was illegal under the U.N. Charter and Nuremberg, both of which are international treaties entered into under the authority of the united states, and thus the war is illegal under the constitution as well. Kevin Baas^talk 01:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And regarding the rationale in the article, numerous democratic congressmen were working with bonifaz in the beggining on challenging the bill that transfered an untransferable (except by constitutional ammendment) power, on constitutional grounds. Kevin Baas^talk 01:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing the claim, but it is evident the subject is highly controversial and people keep trying to delete every single sentence, so it is important to have every assertion substantiated by sources and not just common sense. Nomen Nescio 01:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Baas says this "the war was illegal under the U.N. Charter and Nuremberg, both of which are international treaties entered into under the authority of the united states, and thus the war is illegal under the constitution as well...". Well, I see two problems with that statement: #1) "the war was illegal" is a disputed conclusion and #2) "and thus...". Kevin, surely you are not suggesting to us that you are a scholar of consitutional law and treaties are you? Good. And since you are not, here's my take: You are wrong. If USA breaches a treaty, what occurs is that a treaty is broken. All rights enumurated in US Consitution are always in full force. It is impossible to treat away any rights listed in the Consitution. USA presidents have a Constitutional duty to protect USA. This duty at all times and always trumps any treaty which seems to contradict it. Simply put, any treaty which on its face, asserts that it trumps USA Constitution is voidable. Not void mind you, but voidable. And where the overlap falls under the purview of Presidential authority, the president has unilateral power to disregard any such treaty. That said, it's of no mind anyway, because your premise that the invasion was "illegal" under international law is false. So to sum up: It was not illegal. And it was not a treaty violation. But, even it it were a treaty violation, because it was national security, the President has the power to do it. Simply put, you have trouble grasping this, so I will spell it out: Under USA Constitution, there are certain things which are absolutely the sole purview of certain branches of government. Congress controls the budget, Supremes control the courts and Pres. has final say as military Commander in Chief. Just what is it about the term Commander in Chief you don't understand? Merecat 02:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you just said that if the President says "National security" he can do anything? Torture, murder, rape, bomb cities (even US cities), even invade other countries because he as Commander in Chief thinks that it is needed to protect US citizens? Nomen Nescio 02:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that from? What I just said was that no treaty can remove from the President any of his Constitutional powers. In other words, if it's legal for the President under the Constitution, then it remains legal for him, treaty or not. Merecat 02:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is he bound by the War Crimes Act? Nomen Nescio 02:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The question here is the legal effect of treaties. Treaties are not amendments to the Constitution, period. USA Constitution always trumps all treaties. No treaty can void any aspect of the Constitution, period. I don't know how much more clearly I can tell you this: Treaties do not amend the Constitution. Try reading the Constitution sometime. You will see that there is a perscribed method for making amendments and signing a treaty is not it. Please do some more reading at Treaty. See "[A]dditionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law..." and "The Supreme Court has also ruled in Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979) that the President has the power to unilaterally abrogate a treaty without the consent of Congress or the Senate. The case in question involved President Jimmy Carter's termination of a defense treaty with the Republic of China on Taiwan" at Treaty. Merecat 02:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The US War Crimes Act explicitly incorporates UNCAT. Therefore the US is bound by it. But your logic has a more disturbing consequence. Every dictator in the world can assert that his constitiution demands he kills and tortures. Since he can prove it with his constitution nobody can object. More to the point, Milosevic and Hussein both assert that what they did was protecting their country against security treats. Sound familiar? Further, a war of aggression is alwaya prohibited under US and international law.

And, if everything is legal why is this administration doing everything in its powers to prevent review by the courts? Nomen Nescio 02:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are going off on a tangent. The question at hand here is: Do treaties trump USA Constitution? The answer to that is no, they do not. Suffice it to say, violation of a treaty is not an impeachable offense. On the other hand, USA Congress has broad discretion as to the reasons to impeach. Certainly dereliction of duty is a crime for a military commander and the President is our military commander. If the things you suggest he did "torture, murder, rape, bomb cities" and "war of aggression" were in the view of Congress, actually commited by him, he could be removed from office via impeachment for dereliction of duty. However, he could not lawfully be removed for a treaty violation per se. Got it? Merecat 02:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I got it the first time, but I disagree. Even the President of the United States is bound by international law. If not: what is the point of international law if anybody can simply say "I no longer feel bound by it?" Even Bush disagrees with you since the torture memos clearly show that refuting the GC was meant to hinder any furure prosecution for war crimes. And also, if the US isw not bound by international law, what is the problem in signing the International Criminal Court? If the President doesn't like it he simply ignores it. Nomen Nescio 02:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well now we are getting somewhere. That is the precise reason why European leaders hate USA. USA Presidents have much more power than any other free country's leader. It may be scary, but it's true. However, because we have a three-part government, the Congress can always get rid of a President, hence things do not get too far out of whack. The real question you should be asking yourself is: Why has Congress not impeached and removed Bush yet? The answer to that is the reasons offered so far do not warrant such an extreme step. At least not in the minds of most members of Congress. On that point, I can see why you are frustrated - you would obviously vote to impeach on even the thin gruel posted in this wiki article. However, a wiki article is not an article of impeachment and you are not a Congressman. So flummoxed or not, your view (and mine) carries no weight at that level. And by the way, the US Supreme Court has ruled already (see above) that the President does have the absolute right to abrogate treaties. When you get your mind around this and the underlying USA premise of USA Liberty and Freedom, you will see what a great system we have here. Things in USA are not at all as bad as certain liberals in the media would have you think. Bush is not The Great Satan and he not a dictator - nor has he been behaving like that. The sooner you understand that, the sooner your zeal (for POV mush like this article) will fade. Merecat 02:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Padilla mentioned here for 1st time (1st mention is by Nomen)

You clearly fail to understand what you are saying. Padilla is currently being held because of ever changing reasons. He has no right to a trial, then because the Supreme Court is about to rule on those unlimited war powers (and probably not according to your interpretation) this administration swiftly changes his enemy combatant status to that of a criminal. The effect is that the Supreme Court does not rule on the constitutionality of these war powers. If you are correct you yourself can be arrested and kept in Black sites because the magic word is Commander in Chief.

And of course the ever popular "everybody hates us because we have the best democracy," suddenly appears. Maybe not everybodty hates the US, but simply voice their criticism on US foreign and domestic policy. Second, such a statement is as arrogant and egocentric as you can get, "look at us, the saviour of the world." Nomen Nescio 12:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Padilla has legal problems only because our system is just and compassionate. Under many other circumstances, he would have already been shot. Frankly, if you think that it's sound to extrapolate Padilla's plight to a broad-sweeping inference that everyone faces the same prosecution he does, you are being unreasonable. FYI: Why don't you email Harry Reid or Ted Kennedy and ask them to help Padilla? Strange, if there is such an injustice going on there, you would think that the Democrat Senators would be each day calling for his release... And please top your sloppy use of quotation marks - your are wrongly attributing verbatim words to me, which I did not speak. Please make the effort to distinguish between an exact quote and a paraphrase. Anyway, your complaints about Padilla are needlessly provocative on this page and do nothing to help improve the article. Please stay focused. Merecat 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What has Padilla done? Nomen Nescio 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, please stay focused. This article is not about Padilla. Please go to Rumsfeld v. Padilla if you want to discuss the charges against him. Merecat 03:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who Padilla is, but you attack him with such fervor, yet you can't even name a bad thing he's done? Why are you attacking him if you don't know of any thing he's done? That seems kind of pointless to me. In that you just spend so many paragraphs doing so, I would say you're pretty "focused" on the anger. Yet you imply that one shouldn't focus on the cause or lack thereof? Is this you're way of "thinking"?: Aggression w/out cause? If you can't answer Nomen's question, Merecat, you shouldn't be talking about Padilla the way you have been. It's important for you to realize that. Kevin Baas^talk 15:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I did not introduce the topic of Padilla, Nomen did (see above). And what "anger" are you talking about? I have not expressed any anger towards Padilla. The both of you are going way off track here. If you want to discuss Padilla, go to one or both of the pages for him. Nomen has supplied one link and I the other (see below). Merecat 18:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomen was bringing up an example of the president violating habeas corpus, relavent to both constitutional law and to international law (and thus again to constitutional law where the international law is not inconsistent with the constitution, such as in this case), and by their relevance to the supreme law of the land, relevent to impeachment in regards to the constitutionality of the invasion and acts pertaining thereto. Kevin Baas^talk 19:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI, José Padilla (alleged terrorist) Nomen Nescio 18:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Nomen. Held without charge for 5 years. Ironic. Kevin Baas^talk 18:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I mention Padilla as example of what the Commander-in-Chief magic powers can do. Clearly this shows that as US citizen you are liable to be arrested and kept from the courts simply because the President asserts superduper powers. Nomen Nescio 18:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Now, here again I ask you: Please desist from discussing Padilla on this page. This page is about "Rationales to impeach George W. Bush". Either add to this article, specific allegations (with citations) that there are calls to impeach Bush because of Padilla, or please, please, please, stop talking about Padilla here. If you want to talk about Padilla, go to a Padilla page. Padilla, Padilla, Padilla - will you please stop clogging up this page with Padilla. Thank you! Merecat 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay then Merecat, for the purpose of moving the discussion forward, beyond Padilla: Nomem has suggested that you are making assertions in areas where you have insufficient expertise. (using differnt wording) To demonstrate this, he provided a counterexample to what you said:

You clearly fail to understand what you are saying. Padilla is currently being held because of ever changing reasons. He has no right to a trial, then because the Supreme Court is about to rule on those unlimited war powers (and probably not according to your interpretation) this administration swiftly changes his enemy combatant status to that of a criminal. The effect is that the Supreme Court does not rule on the constitutionality of these war powers. If you are correct you yourself can be arrested and kept in Black sites because the magic word is Commander in Chief.

And of course the ever popular "everybody hates us because we have the best democracy," suddenly appears. Maybe not everybodty hates the US, but simply voice their criticism on US foreign and domestic policy. Second, such a statement is as arrogant and egocentric as you can get, "look at us, the saviour of the world."Holland Nomen Nescio 12:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand the point that Nomen is making, by using Padilla as an example, in relation to your assertions? Kevin Baas^talk 19:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I made no assertions regarding anything that warrranted introducing Padilla into the dialog onto this page. Merecat 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Warranted" is clearly the wrong language. Discussions on this talk page don't require warrants. to the contrary, they are encouraged, for the sake of resolving disputes. ofcourse, one should stay on topic. we have already demonstrated that the example of padilla was relevant to the discussion, now we are trying to get back to that discussion, specifically with regard to the assertions you made in it, which padilla was used as a counterexample to. Are you going to defend you assertions, in light of Nomen's counterexample, and in response to the premises of his argument, or are you going to concede the argument? You can't have both ends of the stick. Kevin Baas^talk 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, for the final time, I will tell you: This is not the page for discussions about Padilla. I am not arguing this, but if you want to, go right ahead. However, my position is that this is not the right talk page for that. If you can't understand this, then I suggest leaving me alone, for I have answered you as plainly as I am going to regarding that here. Now, regarding the supposed rationales to impeach Bush - regarding that specifically, what would you like to discuss? Merecat 02:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the premises of the argument. The argument was "The effect is that the Supreme Court [has] not [ruled] on the constitutionality of these war powers." Your argument above cited "Goldwater_v._Carter", as saying that the Supreme Court had ruled that the president may arbitrary abrograte treaties. (This is very strange. What's the point of entering into them then?) Thus, if Padilla is not a U.S. citizen, the president has the authority to do whatever he wants with him, so long as it's not against U.S. law (which treaties are under the constitution - a contradiction. weird.). That's a valid argument. Though the ramifactions, to me, are strange. I noticed that you quoted directly from the "treaty" article you linked to. I took the liberty of looking at the "Goldwater_v._Carter" article, and found to my surprise that it said "The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard;"! This means that it was not ruled on, supporting Nomen's argument that the Supreme Court has not ruled on this. But it contradicts the language in the treaty article. In such cases, I consider the article that is more directly relevant; to, i.e. about, the issue to be more reliable. The article concludes (this is wrong, articles shouldn't "conclude"):

While throwing out the case of Goldwater v. Carter, the Supreme Court left the question of the constitutionality of the President Carter's action open. Powell and Rehnquist merely questioned the judicial merit of the case itself; they did not explicitly approve Carter's action.2 Moreover, Powell even stated that this could be a valid constitutional issue.3 Article II, Clause II of the Constitution merely states that the President cannot make treaties without a Senate majority two-thirds vote. As it stands now, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress.

So upon further investigation, the source you referenced seems, to me at least, to support Nomen's argument more than yours. We now have two examples of the Supreme Court not ruling. (And an apparent inaccuracy in an article that needs to be corrected - and has already led at least two people into confusion.) Kevin Baas^talk 03:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If the wiki article for treaty was inaccurate, then I stand corrected - because I did cite it above. However, in the very wiki article which Kevin quotes from, we also find this quote:

"If the Congress, by appropriate formal action, had challenged the President’s authority to terminate the treaty with Taiwan, the resulting uncertainty could have serious consequences for our country. In that situation, it would be the duty of this Court to resolve the issue." Justice Powell in his opinion

Interestingly enough, since this is a direct quote from a Justice, we can safely agree it's true that Congress did not challenge Carter's abrogation. Certainly, this is concession by default by Congress. Carter abrogated, Congress stood mute. Certainly if treaty abrogation was outside of Presidential purview, Carter would have been impeached. That fact that we was not, bolsters my assertion. Also, acccording to Rehnquist, the dispute was "nonjusticiable":

"I am aware of the view that the basic question presented by the petitioners in this case is 'political' and therefore nonjusticiable because it involves the authority of the President in the conduct of our country's foreign relations and the extent to which the Senate or the Congress is authorized to negate the action of the President."

Seems to support what I've been saying Merecat 03:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I read it to say that the case was not heard on the basis of how it was filed and that Congress's process was not appropriately formal:

Justices Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist issue two separate concurring opinions on the case. Rehnquist claimed that the issue concerned how foreign affairs were conducted between Congress and the President, and was essentially political, not judicial; therefore, it was not elligible to be heard by the court. Powell, while agreeing that the case did not merit judicial review, believed that the issue itself, the powers of the President to break treaties without congressional approval, would have been arguable had Congress issued a formal opposition through a resolution to the termination of the treaty (The Senate had drafted such a resolution, but not voted upon it).1 This would have turned the case into a constitutional debate between the executive powers granted to the President against the legislative powers granted to Congress. As the case stood, however, it was simply a dispute between the executive and legislative branches of government, political in nature.

And what you quoted above:

"If the Congress, by appropriate formal action, had challenged the President’s authority ... it would be the duty of this Court to resolve the issue."

Kevin Baas^talk 03:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And that had congress went about it differently, "the basic question presented by the petitioners" would be different, namely, constitutional rather than political. Kevin Baas^talk 04:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, one Justice said that, but he was not speaking for the court. The case was turned away. Certainly the other Justices who remained mute, did not agree with Powell. If they did, they would have said so. Their silence speaks volumes. "As the case stood, however, it was simply a dispute between the executive and legislative branches of government, political in nature". If Carter was wrong, the recourse was impeachment and removal. Congress' failure to do that, is a concession Carter's position was right. The USSC's refusal to hear the case indicates that the case had no merit. Merecat 04:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The case as filed had no merit, in the opinion of one judge. I don't think that the only recourse was impeachment, nor that the fact that congress did not impeach shows that congress agreed that carter's position was right.

In any case, what we have here is two cases in which the supreme court did not rule on the constitutionality of the president unilaterally and arbitrarily abrogating international treaties. Kevin Baas^talk 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, what we have is the court refusing to even hear arguments that Presidential abrogation was wrong. Sounds to me like Carter was right. Merecat 04:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The court did not hear the case, therefore they could not rule on it. Throwing out a case is not ruling on it - that is, it does not create a judicial/legal precedent. The case was - I would venture to use the legal terms - "dismissed without prejudice", because it was filled incorrectly: As I understand it, since congress had not resolved, congress, formally speaking, was not the party filling the case, members of congress were, and therefore it was political.

And let me apologize, Merecat, I had missed your citation of this case, and had missed that Nomen had not "[responded] to the premises". I can understand your irritation then. I'm guessing he missed it, as I did. I think there's a tendency for this kind of thing to happen when discussions get heated. Kevin Baas^talk 04:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The USSC does not generally engage in futile legal exercizes. If Carter was seriously out of bounds, they would have taken the case. Suggestions to the contrary are silly. The fact that they did not, makes clear that there was not enough "case" there to warrant even paying attention to Goldwater. Goldwater's claims were so fanciful, that the court refused to hear them. That was a resounding victory for Carter. There is no need for a precedent to be set on topics which are clear-cut already. The refusal to hear the case affirms that there was no valid legal controversy. Carter was right, period. Merecat 04:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The USSC is composed of people, which are known to make mistakes from time to time. The USSC has been known to make mistakes. When discussing laws, one does not speculate, one talks about laws and legal precedents. In so far as we are discussing law, there is no law on the books or legal precedent in the cases under discussion (one which has not been brought to supreme court, and both which have not been heard in supreme court) affirming a president's authority to unilaterally abrogate an international treaty. Kevin Baas^talk 04:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

His authority was affirmed when the USSC refused to hear a challenge to it. Merecat 05:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Opps, I just assumed by USSC you meant US congress. i was wondering where the extra S came from. Kevin Baas^talk 16:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me then respond to that from a correct understanding. You said "The USSC does not generally engage in futile legal exercizes." True, neccessarily, because the USSC does not engage in "legal exercizes" at all. That term might be appropriate for a lawyer, but not a judge or panel thereof. You said "If Carter was seriously out of bounds, they would have taken the case. Suggestions to the contrary are silly." Let me offer a silly suggestion: they cannot decide whether or not to take a case based on a prejudice for or against a defendant. Indeed, they cannot have prejudice for or against the defendant or prosecutor. They cannot assume the conclusion. regarding their ability to decide whether or not to take a case in general, that is a very limited ability bound by law. For instance, if the suit was filled incorrectly (such as filed by a party unable to bring suit against the defendant (such as not being a legal guardian of a child such as in the recent case about the pledge of alliance in public school)), they cannot hear the case. They could not take the case, regardless of whether or not carter was out of bounds. And if they felt so strongly that carter was or was not out-of-bounds before hearing the case, that judge or those judges would have to abstain. Kevin Baas^talk 18:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting philosophy, by not ruling the courts are in fact making a leagal ruling. Definitely has a Through the Looking-Glass ambiance. As I understandf the law, no ruling means: no ruling!

But let's use another example to test whether the President can ignore international law. Do you believe he is bound by the U.S. War Crimes Act? This law explicitly incorporates the Geneva Conventions so if the War Crimes Act applies (which is part of US law!), by definition the GC apply. In this case, the President cannot ignore this part of international law without ignoring US law. Nomen Nescio 12:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is some basic reasoning 101 for the both of you on the USSC not having taken the case: If the case were about an issue of national importance and it had merit, they certainly would have taken the case. After all, this type of claim against a President is an issue of national importance. Therefore, since they did not take the case, it can only be because the case had no merit. Goldwater had no grounds to challenge Carter (case had no merit). If you don't see that, well then let's just drop this point. Merecat 05:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again I ask the question, are you saying that by not ruling on it, the court has made a legal ruling? Nomen Nescio 14:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up tag

Could somebody at least explain why the clean-up tag is needed. Just placing it without explanation and without even trying to work on the article is not helping. Adding the tag because of politcal reasons is uncivil and disruptive. Nomen Nescio 12:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, the same as I am entitled to mine. In my view, this is a sloppy, POV article in need of much work. If and/or when it improves greatly, I will agree to remove that tag, not until. Please stop trying to turn this into a battleground. Your edit to the date portion of that tag is evidence that you are trying to provoke trouble. Merecat 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your contribution here and on Plame affair makes me doubt your good faith. The POV only pertains to the title, which IMHO is too small to warrant the tag. As to the clean-up, you still have to explain what needs cleaning up. Since there is no debate over the clean-up I will remove the tag unless you start discussing what it is that has to be improved. NPOV is not the same as clean-up!

More to the point you are on political reasons blackmailing this page into the appearance of unreliability although you know very well that nearly every sentence is supported by references! Nomen Nescio 21:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This comment of yours "blackmailing this page", sounds to me like an insult. If you did not intend it that way, please rephrase. As for our editing differences, please confine your comments on this talk page to specific concerns about specific edits to this article. Thanks. Merecat 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Link style is too obtuse

The links are too hard to use with ease - web articles should be linked within the body of the article, not at the bottom of page - I have tagged the article to reflect this. Merecat 02:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to this elsewhere. The references at the bottom are currently policy standard. If you think it should be otherwise, you should discuss it on the wikipidia policy proposals page.

And on the subject of policy, I expect to see a specific factual dispute of specific content in the article, on this talk page very shortly. Kevin Baas^talk 03:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've told you elsewhere as well, see Rachel Corrie a high quality article which uses "references" at the bottom of the page, but also uses in-line links within the body of the article. As for the factual dispute, the title of the article itself is fraudulent in that the article consists of a wiki compilied list of discrete rants by disparate, sources with widely varying actual underyling truth. There is an enormous disparity between heat of the moment sound-bites and partisan pot-shots vs. scholarly work. This article is such a mish-mash of POV rants, that agglomorating it them here is so misleading as to be false. If this article were called Currently advanced partisan rationales for impeaching George W. Bush, it would cease to be a fraud. Merecat 03:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what the exact policy is, I don't go about converting pages, I just use whatever style is on the given article. In any case, my point is that there is a central place for discussing this. Kevin Baas^talk 03:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Can the honourable editor stop his disruptive behaviour? If you disagree with new style of notes take it to the relevant page, which is not here. If you after seeing a million sources claim the article is not factual you clearly make a bad faith contribution. First show what part is not factual before adding ludicrous tags. Please refresh your memory: WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT, WP:DR, WP:VAND, WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, WP:CON, WP:AD.

After seeing the contributions here and on other pages I am getting close to starting a Requests for comment/User conduct on Merecat. Still willing to assume good faith I am waiting for this contributor to this page to show his civility by starting discussion on what should be improved, in stead of unilaterally and repeatedly inserting unsupported tags. What's more if this editors refuses to engage in improving the alleged POV, I will remove that tag also since he is the only one insisting it should remain. Nomen Nescio 13:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, your harsh commentary suggests to me you have a problem with me on a personal basis. I am interested in a mediated dialog with you, so as to address all your concerns to your satisfaction. Please leave me a message on my talk page when you are ready to proceed with mediation. As for problems with this page, please see a dialog I am engaged in at Talk:Killian documents which directly addresses the problematic nature of the "references" style links method being used here. Also, why are you stalking my edits (re: "After seeing the contributions here and on other pages")? I feel harrassed by that and I ask you to not follow me around the wiki. Merecat 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel offended, but I was trying to point out your edits were not helping this page become better. Your last edits are much better. They at least try to improve the article. So if you keep making serious contributions, and are willing to discuss those that we disagree upon, I think we can work together and really make this page good and NPOV. Nomen Nescio 14:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Try and maintain NPOV

Please let's not insert and delete information on the basis of personal bias.

• 1 Removing the reference the the Center for Constitutional Rights explicitly discussing several arguments for impeachment is odd and seems like a POV contribution
• 2 Adding "a list of suggested rationales to impeach Bush, which have been offered as of recently, by various partisans" sounds even less NPOV to me.
• 3 "After Ambassador Wilson wrote an article denouncing this assertion, the identity of his wife as CIA employee was made public, allegedly for the 1st time." Is incorrect. Fitzgerald explicitly states that according to his investigation her identity was not known. We must stick to facts and this legal document trumps the rumours on right-wing gossip radio.
• 4 Hurrican Katrina is used as reason to impeach because of criminal neglect, incompetence, et cetera, you name it. Please read the sources before asserting no explanation has been offered.

For President Bush, his failure to act appropriately should be considered as grounds for impeachment. <............> we usually think about impeachment in terms of acts of commission, not omission, a President's not acting to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States" might indeed be grounds for impeachment.[14]

• 5 The WH did explain that Katrina falls under the responsibility of local authorities.
• 6 Why do you delete sourced material?

Nomen Nescio 16:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, please respond to these points before reverting again. Clearly your version is less accurate and more POV. Nomen Nescio 19:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Leaking identity of CIA agent

Firstly, I believe the title of the subsection should be renamed to the title of this subsection. Secondly, to make critic's position more clear, there are some responses I have noticed in the news and elsewhere:

• there is a significant difference between leaking classified information and declassifying information
• Namely, the latter is a formal process in which sensitive sections (such as the names of cia agents) are blacked out
• this is done to protect the identity of the agent - it is illegal to reveal the identity of an agent who's identity is classified, apart from any "leaking" or lack thereof, or declassification of anything other than their identity, or lack of such. (and if their identity is not classified than you wouldn't be revealing the identity of a classified agent)

Kevin Baas^talk 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree the header could be better, so be BOLD. Regarding the leak: is authorisation by the President equal to declassifying? Several observations on the subject can be found in the references I provided for that part of the paragraph. Nomen Nescio 16:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, if you don't know the answer to this "is authorisation by the President equal to declassifying?" (your question from above), perhaps you should look into it more, before presuming that the information which Bush authorized the release of, was still classifed when it was released... Don't you think? Merecat 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to you I am not privy to the details of this authorisation, therefore I won't say he leaked or he did not leak. What I can say is that for the President to say abracadabra and now it is declassified, is not the usual way it is done! Nomen Nescio 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI: It is only alledged that Libby (per ok from Cheney/Bush) "leaked" Plame's name. I dispute that on this basis: a) There has been no finding of fact regarding that, so for us to assert this as fact is POV and false and b) calling it a "leak" is also POV. The Whitehouse asserts that the NIE was only ok'd for release in part and that the ok'd part did not include Plame information and further WH asserts that authorized disclosures are not leaks in that they are authorized. Because KB is trying to insert a biased premeise which assumes that the "impeach" crowd's version of events is accurate and also presumes that the WH/Bush position is inaccurate, Kevin's suggestion is POV and unacceptable. For that reasons, I do not and will not agree to Kevin's above suggestion. Merecat 19:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody says the President authorized the leak of Plame's identity. Furthermore, it is interesting to see that the WH felt they had to set the record straight with information that was 1 an obscure part of the NIE, and 2 already discredited at that time. Nomen Nescio 19:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never suggested that we present it as fact. I have never tried to insert anything in on the topic in discussion into the article (as the article history will show). The evidence aquired in the court case, namely, Lewis Libby's testimony, says that cheney told him that the president authorized it. Patrick Fitzgerald also interviewed cheney and bush for some time, so he would have better knowledge about the consistency among their stories.

If the The Whitehouse does indeed "assert" that the NIE was only ok'd for release in part and that the ok'd part did not include Plame information and further WH asserts that authorized disclosures are not leaks in that they are authorized, then that should be put in the article with as little distortion from the original assertion as possible, and not represented or treated as fact any more than assertions made in a court filing. (and from a rational thinking (unbiased) point of view, it should be regarded as less reliable on account of the context - there are serious ramifications for factual inaccuracies in court filings, but not so much (in practice, at least) for politicians being "political", and therefore a prosecutor is less likely to decieve than a president.

There is too much for me to write in response, i'll just cut to the chase. Every time you've assumed, above, esp. in regard assuming that i'm assuming, you have been wrong. Perhaps you are basing your assumptions on a flawed assumption. Kevin Baas^talk 22:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa nelly! If we are going to start discounting the validity of assertions based on weighed presumptions of "serious ramifications for factual inaccuracies", since there are no punative ramifications attached to the prevarications of Joe Wilson, or the rabid partisanship of places like DailyKos, The Nation, Democratic Underground, DNC, Dean, Dem Senators, etc., then using this rule, we need to heavily discount virtually all the complaints and allegations in this article. For example, I think that Russ Fiengold's "censure" trial ballon is utterly specious and partisan driven, but that's just my opinion. Suffice it to say, I think we start treading on dangerous ground when we start "discounting" veracity based on our perceptions of potentially influencing things. Merecat 00:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about a legal filing. They're generally representative of the law. I am not talking about discounting anything I'm talking about attributing reasonable weights to things before logically reasoning from them, known, philsophically as "rationality". But to be precise, the president's statements that we are discussing do not contradict the statements in the legal filing. They are, however, misleading, specious, as they mischaracterize the debate.

For instance, recently the president has "admitted" to declassifying information, which is completely irrelevant. Yes, he declassified information (not by the usual procedures), 10 days after the issue in question, namely, some of the information was declassified 10 days after he publicly disclosed (or more propoerly, allegedly authorized it to be publicly disclosed) information that at the time, had not been declassified; still was classified, at the time that it was disclosed - and furthermore, still was classified after the declassification, such as the identity of a CIA agent (highlighted with a black highlighter). His statements do not contradict the statements in the legal filing, so there is no question of veracity in dispute. However, they are misleading in that they confuse the listener into thinking that the issue is that he declassified information (though he did not declassify the identity of Valerie Plame before, during, or after he allegedly authorized the public disclosure of her classified identity (as has already been pointed out), nor has he ever said that he did). That is not the issue. Kevin Baas^talk 01:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, am I remembering correctly that this was the document exchanged on Air Force One?) Kevin Baas^talk 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is, in a word, a distraction. Though the distraction brings up legal issues as well, both of procedure and of misuse of office. Kevin Baas^talk 01:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, assuming everything you say is correct (though I say you are wrong), where do you get your verification for this "though he did not declassify the identity of Valerie Plame"? How do you know he didn't? He may very well have. Do you dispute that he has the legal authority to and could do so, if he so decided? Merecat 01:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If her identity was declassified why did the President order an investigation into the leak.213.93.54.65 16:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Because even if he declassified documents that revealed the classified identity of CIA agents, those revelations would be blacked out by the declassification procedure, and thus, not declassified. Kevin Baas^talk 01:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The blacked-out portions of the declassified versions of the material still are classified, and when he authorized disclosure, he authorized disclosure of material that did not have those portions blacked out, and therefore he authorized the disclosure of information that is still classified (the blacked-out portions). Kevin Baas^talk 01:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Do you dispute that he has the legal authority to and could do so, if he so decided?" If he has the legal authority, it is not contained within his authority to declassify intelligence. I know of no law nor legal president affirming the president's legal authority or disclose classified information by means other than declassification (in which the information is not classified at the time of disclosure). There are laws that explicitly prohibit the disclosure of the classified identity of CIA agents, under which the president is amenable to in his private character as a U.S. citizen, in particular there is the Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act. That law was written, in part, as a response to several incidents where CIA agents' identities were published for political reasons. Kevin Baas^talk 02:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, even if your knowledge about laws is utterly comprehensive (though I say it's not), you leave out an important factor: Executive Orders. I suggest you look into that topic so as to understand it better. Under the auspices of an Executive Order, any USA President has virtually unfettered leeway regarding releasing information. If you do not understand this, there's no point in discussing it. Point of fact, a USA president has full authority to order any and/or all information he chooses released, regardless of whatever the typical procedures might be and whatever legal guidelines are in place. Executive Orders are like an algebraic expression, the variable is filled in by the Executive and the Order must be followed. The authority to issue directives of that sort, rests in the Constitution. In any area under Presidential purview, the President's power is paramount. Your argument boils down to the contention that Bush acted outside his authority. You and the Dems say he did, he says he did not. When you refer to the "classified identity of CIA agents", you infer that Bush's directive alone is insufficent to render something which was classified, unclassified. On this point, we disagree. I contend that all USA presidents have that power. Also, I further contend that this power was not used against Plame and that anyone saying so, is wrong. Merecat 02:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not pretend to have a comprehensive knowledge about laws, if i did, I would not suffix my statements with "that I know of", though I can see that from an emotional reading of the suffix, this is readily construed as arrogance. I concede that "executive orders" are a strong legal argument for unchecked executive power. Though "under Presidential purview, the President's power is paramount" might be construed as a tautology, the Constitution grants congress some regulatory powers over the executive. And though an executive order may be legal where no law explicitly prohibits the order or restricts the president's authority (it is congress's role to determine the legal structure of the executive), it is arguable both whether certain things are within the "Presidential purview", and it is arguably whether orders from the executive trump laws passed by congress with the explicit purpose of restraining the president. Kevin Baas^talk 02:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Upon review of Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_2:_Presidential_PowersArticle 2 Section 2, I find no mention of executive orders, nor granting of immunity in general or in special, to the president, from the law. In art. 2, sct. 1, I find under the powers of the legislature:

• To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. (emphasis added)

Kevin Baas^talk 02:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Constitution grants congress some regulatory powers over the executive" = partially true
• "It is congress's role to determine the legal structure of the executive" = false

We have a tripartite government. Each of the three branches has some area of exclusive purview. Please stop imagining that Congress rules the president. It does not. Congress can check the president, but Congress is not "over" the president. However, the same is true in the reciprocal and also as applied between USSC and the other two. Each of the three is paramount in their own areas. Merecat 03:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ya, three parts, and congress's part is to make laws. Kevin Baas^talk 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Center for Constitutional Rights

I will observe your 3RR breach, however this belongs in the intro since it is a major legal institute and it has made assertions on the subject. This is not open for your POV version of events. Deleting sourced material is very bad form indeed. Nomen Nescio 01:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If you contend I breached 3rr on this article today, please post the diffs here. If not, please retract your allegation. Merecat 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[15][16][17][18][19] Nomen Nescio 01:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, in looking at your links, I see that the 1st one is distinct and does not count, but the remaining four have similarity. However, those four are not all indentical edits, so they are not all reverts. I do see though, how the text you wanted kept, was excised on four occassions. I will re-insert it, because it was not my intent that should happen. I still oppose that text, but will re-insert it in good faith. Thanks for your feedback. Merecat 02:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Nomen Nescio 02:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting sourced material and adding POV

Please stop with editing in a overtly biased way.

• The use of "including some political partisans" is hardly a NPOV contribution. (emphasis added)
• Deleting a description as "a civil rights legal advocacy non-profit organization based in New York," is hard to understand for those who think it is important to know what this [[Center for Constitutional Rights] is.
• Deleting sourced and adequately identified comments like:

In addition, it has been noted by Elizabeth de la Vega and Greg Mitchell that the assertion this declassification was needed to counter misinformation spread by opponents of the Bush administration's casus belli is odd. Since only an obscure part of the NIE, which supports the claims advanced by the US government, has been released, while the rest of the report, in which the CIA in 2002 allegedly dismissed that claim as unlikely, is still classified.

does not help in maintaining NPOV. You are well aware that the leaked info was already discredited at the time. Which is important to note, in light of the explanation this administration offered.

Could you at least first explain what part of the above is incorrect and POV in your opinion? As always I ask you to engage in discussion showing what and why you think something should change. Once again you censor information and insert POV terms without even trying to avoid dispute. Seeing this I think your recent improvement in behaviour is already over. Nomen Nescio 13:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, please confine your commentary to the merits of my edits. And please stop ignoring my edit summaries. Each of my edits are well supported by my summaries. Please read them. Thank you. Merecat 13:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Humour me. I am not that intelligent. Please answer the questions above. Nomen Nescio 13:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The "References" style of links is impeding edits

It's very challening to delete or modify a POV or other sentence with so many imbedded "<.refs>". I urge the editors here to desist from that link method. Merecat 13:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You have already been answered at the following locations: User talk:Merecat, Talk:Killian documents, Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), Wikipedia:Village pump (all), Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive35 Nomen Nescio 14:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is hijacking this article

Today, I made this edit. What followed was 4 reverts by Nescio:

1. 13:27, 11 April 2006 [20]
2. 13:39, 11 April 2006 [21]
3. 13:55, 11 April 2006 [22]
4. 14:04, 11 April 2006 [23]

I am trying my best with Nescio, to give him the benefit of every doubt. In fact, yesterday, I restored the text he wanted, because I had accidentally excised it four times. Now today, Nescio will not even allow modifications of his sacred introduction. He has completely hijacked this article and turned it into his own personal anti-Bush screed. At this point, I am quitting this article for now. It's just a complete waste, getting enmeshed in a brouhaha with Nescio. Merecat 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Any editor refusing to discuss but willing to violate the 3RR ([24][25][26][27][28]) will not be allowed to make highly controversial contributions. Nomen Nescio 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocks

I blocked four users for edit warring on this article: Nescio (talk · contribs), Merecat (talk · contribs), 80.220.222.68 (talk · contribs), and IworkforNASA (talk · contribs). If reverts rather than discussion commence again once the blocks expire, I will consider more blocks and full page protection. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:OR problems with this article

Please do not remove the {{npov}} tag, there are obvious POV problems with the article. If you would like specific criticism of the POV nature of the article i will make a list, but IMHO it would be more productive to work on the original reseach problems first (see Geneva Convention section above). EricR 19:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If there are so obvious to you, then why don't you bring them to the talk page, per policy. Kevin Baas^talk 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if somebody at least explains the need for this tag. As to OR, please explain. Nomen Nescio 19:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I support the placement of the NPOV tag. My primary (though not sole) reason is the there are too many problematic "References" at the foot of the article. These references are problematic because: a) the manner in which they are linked into the article makes it extremely difficult to coherently remove any that are objectionable, b) the sheer number of the references has turned this article into a repository of anti-Bush links and that's not encyclopedic and c) a significant number of these links are from extremely POV and and partisan sources and because of this (combined with the shrill hyperbolic titles of many links), there is a "well-poisoning" effect from these links. Also, I might add that Nescio recently made a "vandal" report regarding this article in which he alleged that I (merecat) am one and the same as User:80.220.222.68. I submit to the others here that this is a false allegation by Nescio and I am happy to challenge Nescio to agree that a "checkuser" be performed solely to see if "80.220.222.68" is me or rather, someone else, perhaps Nescio himself...? I also am opposed to this sentence being in the opening para: "For example, The Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil rights legal advocacy non-profit organization based in New York,[3] discusses some arguments in Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush". There are several problems with this sentence, not the least of which is that this "Center" is a highly partisan organisation and by omittiing this fact, the description of the "Center" is misleading to the readers. Merecat 19:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all welcome back. As to the link style I fail to see what this has to do with either POV or even this article. As has been explained to you on other pages (User talk:Merecat, Talk:Killian documents, Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), Wikipedia:Village pump (all), Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive35) any problems you have with this new style of links should be discussed on that particular page and not here. Third, if you feel there are to many links you may stop asserting that the article is factual incorrect. The sources are placed to show that every claim in the text is based upon outside sources and certainly not OR. Feel free to stop asking for more references. Regarding biased view, as I have been asking you and others please insert references to support other views. This can only improve the article. Of course, you can show evidence of the CCR being a partisan organisation? Nomen Nescio 20:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I note for the record, that Nescio's reply above does not deny that he is User:80.220.222.68. Based on this, one might infer that he is. Nescio, since you were keen to accuse me about this, I have a question for you: Yes or no, did you make these edits? Merecat 20:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, as to original research: 1 Each section should clearly state who has put forth this argument as a rationale for impeachment. If the persons/organizations are not identified w/ supporting references then these are merely the wikipedia editors rationales for impeachment.EricR 20:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please cite where the article does not attribute a claim to specific persons/organisations. Nomen Nescio 21:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• For instance, the "Extraordinary rendition" section. Commentators have claimed the practice is contrary to international law, but who has stated that this is an impeachable offence and actually called for impeachment based on this rationale?
• Rather than go throught the article section by section, wouldn't it be better to try and reach consensus first? Right now this is just my objection to the article content which no one else has supported. Would you agree that this is the right criteria for including a section in the article or would you propose something else? EricR 21:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, indeed no source is provided. I will look and see if it can be inserted. However, it is hard to imagine that violating international law (UNCAT, Human Rights) does not fall under impeachable offense. But again, I will find the requested quote. Any other problems? Nomen Nescio 22:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

2 The position of each such person/organization should be clearly explained. For instance, in the Geneva section, VFP has called for impeachment based on this issue. Conyers however has not. He has stated that if the allegations are true then they rise to an impeachable offence, has called for further investigation but has not called for impeachment based on any specific rationale.EricR 20:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• What part of "Representative John Conyers and Veterans For Peace hold that violating the Geneva Conventions is an impeachable offense" is incorrect? Nomen Nescio

• I don't think the statement is incorrect, but it should be made clear that VFP has actually called for impeachment, while Conyers has called for further investigation. EricR 21:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This sentence covers the impeachment rationale, while your version would take at least two sentences. Feel free to change it if you feel that distinction is important and should be discussed. Nomen Nescio 22:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

3 The supporting information in each section should be clearly connected to impeachment. For instance, again in the Geneva section, Conyers specificaly cited the ICRC (and based on a quick reading, Human Rights Watch) as basis for further investigation. The ICRC arguments should be summarized, preferably quoted and preferably the same quotes that are used in the Conyers report. Statements critical of the administration, even when they claim illegal actions are largely irrelevant unless someone notable has used them as a basis for impeachment. The article should not make an argument for impeachment, but simply present the arguments of others. As to POV: 4 Arguments, persons, organizations and claims not clearly connected to impeachment should be cut from the article (or moved to the issue's main article) as giving undue weight to a particular side of the issue.EricR 20:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Find them, and bring them to discussion. Kevin Baas^talk 21:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some additional information is needed, an allowed, to explain where the rationale is based upon. Nomen Nescio 21:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

5 Each section of course needs to be balance w/ well cited contrary viewpoints. Notable persons organizations which claim that the particular issue is not in fact a basis for impeachment.

• Feel free to insert any sourced rebuttal. Nomen Nescio 21:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

1. But first, ofcourse, the sections need to discuss notable persons/organizations/documents which claim that the particular issue/rationale is in fact a basis for impeachment. I think we should have such content in the article. But lacking both sides (rather than one or the other) is not a POV issue, it's a "i think we should add this" issue. Kevin Baas^talk 21:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

EricR 20:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I further contend that by using multiple citations for each <ref>, this article is inherently a WP:OR violation in its entirity. This is true because by definition, if we point to more than one citation for any <ref>, we are actually asserting the "blended" views of those multiple citations for the particular textual <ref>. It simply is not possible that 5, 6 or 7 citations can be saying exactly the same thing. Therefore, to use those multiple citations to make a single point, we are either falsely aggregating dissimilar citations in one <ref> or the textual point which we attribute to the <ref> must have been "blended" at an editor's discretion so as to "fit" what the multiple citations actually say. This "blending" results in a novel view which is unique not to any particulat citation, but rather to the editor himself. Without question, this is a WP:OR violation and must not continue. Additionally, using more than one citation to prove any particular point is over-kill, and poisons the well with anti-Bush animus. If there is pro-impeachment sentiment out there, we are to describe it with a NPOV number of links, not fan the flames of anti-Bush hysteria with every POV hit piece that every partisan crank on the web churns out. I am going to go through this article one link at a time. Each and every non-reliable source citation will be removed. Also, each instance where there is a "over-kill" of excess citations for one point, will be trimmed to the best instance citation. And if, because of the obtuse style of links in this article, it becomes difficult to manage this process, then those citations which I modify, will be converted to another style which is used elsewhere, such as at Rachel Corrie. Any objections to this, please state them here ASAP. Merecat 20:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that this article is inherently an OR violation in its entirety, then you should list it on votes for deletion. Kevin Baas^talk 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again Kevin, continuing your pattern of butting in with hostile comments which indicate that you misread me, I will re-state what I said above: "by using multiple citations for each <ref>, this article is inherently a WP:OR violation". If you were to support me and help modify the problematic excess links, we could make this article NPOV. Are you interested in helping, or are you just trying to boss me around? Merecat 21:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I prevented myself from making a harsher criticism, but now I can state it more succinctly and, hopefully, more politely: There is an irony to removing citations in the name of WP:OR.

That being said, to address your comment in its particulars: the overzealously assertive/command tone aside, multiple citations do not "blend". Writting in a vague manner not neccessarily supported in total by each citation (or if the sentence contains multiple ideas, stating a relationship between the ideas would be blending, but it would be appropriate to have a cite per idea in the sentence).

For instance, if multiple organizations are mentioned, that share the same viewpoint, that may require a cite per organization. This is not "blending". The information remains redundant among the citations (with the exception of the organization), and is not operated on (such as blended) in the text. That is, so long as it is not operated on, particularly that it blends, it does not blend. Kevin Baas^talk 21:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As I mention below, I think it's a bad idea to just be citing general organization websites. If the arguments are notable, they'll be published in reputable sources. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 23:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You can start by identifying what sentences you object to, why and what changes you would suggest. Nomen Nescio 21:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• You are the only one objecting to what is official wikipedia style. Once again I urge you to have that discussion not here but on the policy page! As to multiple sources saying thesame, why is that impossible, and have you even read the references? Nomen Nescio 21:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, I have a question for you: Yes or no, did you make these edits? Merecat 21:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe your failure to answer anything pertaining to this page is enlightning. Furhtermore, as you yourself have said, don't make any wild accusations and try and stay with the subject at hand: this article. Thank you. Nomen Nescio 21:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• "There is an irony to removing citations in the name of WP:OR." Good point, this assertion by Merecat also known as contradictio in terminis. Nomen Nescio 22:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, I've asked you elsewhere to desist from putting postings on talk pages with quote marks that infer you are quoting me, when in fact you are not. Your comment of "There is an irony..." consists of your words (originally Kevin Baas), not mine. Please stop posting false quotes. Also, again I will ask you: Yes or no, did you make these edits? Merecat 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are confused, Merecat. Nescio was assuming that the attribution of the quote was obvious, and saying "good point" to me. His reference to your assertion was to the assertion that the quote was responding to. Kevin Baas^talk 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. However, Nescio has several times recently, added quotes to his comments on talk pages, that referred to nothing that had previously been said by myself and/or others. Also, I am still waiting for his answer, Yes or No, did Nescio make these edits? I am particularly interested to know, because those edits contain a direct (and false) accusation against me. And this edit here seems to indicate very strongly that it was indeed Nescio who was editing as IP User:80.220.222.68 and it was indeed Nescio who intentionally falsely accused me - trying to blame me for reverts which he himself had knowingly made. If indeed that was him, he should be banned for a short time for making an obviously fraudulent vandal report about me. In my view, if he did that, I think it's clear evidence of exteme bad faith on his part. And if he denies it, I ask that he agree to a checkuser inquiry to confirm if it was him or not. Merecat 01:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Now this charade ends. If Merecat does not stop making false accusations and personal attacks I will ask for an RFC on user conduct. I have never quoted Merecat, but simply made statements in jest. That he interprets them as quotes, just as the above misinterpretation is not my problem. Second I never accused him but observed, just as he is doing now, a highly remarkable coincidence. As to my adding a link to another editor who against wikipedia policy is deleting warnings on his talk page, that is not prohibited. I am getting very annoyed with certain forms of edits therefore I am more than willing to assist in showing the facts. Just as Merecat refuses to discuss controversial edits, I insist upon civil behaviour. That is, not removing warnings and discussing any evidently disputed edit. Merecat has once again deleted on sight without even realising that he was deleting articles from FindLaw, and Editor and Publishers and The Progressive.

PS Odd that you were able to contribute to the quote to KB while in the same text you accuse me of saying it was you. Clearly you did understand I was not quoting you.. Nomen Nescio 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re Merecat's arguments about references. First, you say it simply is not possible that 5, 6 or 7 citations can be saying exactly the same thing. This statement is in itself true, but it is also true that multiple sources can say virtually the same thing. It is not a WP:NOR violation to summarize text, and if several sources can be summarized to say the same thing, there isn't a problem citing all of them, in general. In fact, it can be beneficial (having more than one reference increases the verifiability of the claim). Second, regarding the m:Cite/Cite.php standard, it's pretty well accepted. It's actually easier to delete references in this system than in the old one, because the reference only appears once (in the prose) rather than both in the prose and in the references section. You also say every non-reliable source citation will be removed, and that I'm fine with. We shouldn't be allowing every partisan crank on the web to have a voice here, but if several major newspaper columnists write essentially the same argument, cite both of them. If a major political organization releases a press release and it's picked up by major newspapers, cite it. I'm skeptical about citing the websites of these organizations though; if their arguments are truly noteworthy, they will get published in the mainstream media. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times aren't exactly known for their conservatism, so if the rationales espoused by these organizations are notable, they'll be published. That's the stuff that should be cited. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up tag

Can the editor explain why this tag is added? What part is incorrect and needs clean-up and why? Specifics!!! Nomen Nescio 03:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply being composed right now, please wait a few minutes. Merecat 03:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is hijacking this article - 2

Tonight, I made several edits, all fully substantiated by accurate, detailed edit summaries: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. Each of these edits was per princples which I had already outlined on talk page some time earlier in the day. Since that time, Nescio did reply on this talk page to my stated intent, but offered no supportable reasons that my objective of removing non-reliable sources links and links to cites which do not have the word "impeach" on them, ought to be thwarted. However, even though Nescio had every opportunity to dialog, just now, he reverted all of those edits en masse stating: "rv major disputed deletions by Merecat, please discuss before making such edits you know there is still debate on talk page!" - yet he refuses to follow his own admonition. These particular edits have not yet been disputed. Also, even if he had disputed these particular edits already, I've been allowed no time to defend my edits - because Nescio offered no talk page criticism of them. Also, Nescio has been called out by me, but refuses to answer regarding certain misdeeds he committed on 04.11.06 regarding this article. With this edit (and others), I directly confronted Nescio with proof that he made a false vandal report about this article and I asked him to respond. I have asked him at least three times already and so far - he does not reply. Nescio reverted this article more than anyone on April 11th, several times while hiding as an IP editor - yet he blames others for his misdeed. Now tonight, some time after giving fair notice, I partially addressed the issue of unreliable sources and also deleted three links to articles which do not offer any "rationales to impeach George W. Bush" - as the word "impeach" did not appear in any of the three articles. Even so, Nescio went right ahead and reverted me. He accuses others of failing to dialog, but that is what he does himself - fails to dialog. As a result, since Nescio has re-introduced the clearly erroneous and problematic links, I have added a {{cleanup}} tag. Frankly I am at a loss - I do not want to revert, because Nescio will likely force a battle right up to 3RR and then perhaps, log out to revert as IP, just as he did on the 11th. Merecat 03:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for not discussing your edits. Again. Clearly you feel the need to be disruptive, to make personal attacks and for that I will start an RFC. Sincerely. Nomen Nescio 03:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I made full disclosure with full advance notice and my edit summaries were detailed. Your objections to my edits of tonight are groundless. Further, I am asking you again (for the 4th time): Yes or no, did you make these edits? As for the RFC, you and I both know that you will never stop what you are doing here unless forced, so go right ahead. Your false vandal report blew up in your face and I expect your RFC will too. Merecat 03:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Both of you, please read over WP:RS#Using_online_sources. I'm of the opinion that Merecat's edits were at least mostly justified, and in line with relevant Wikipedia policy. However, it was disputed on the talk page (myself expressing support of deletion but others not in agreement). Thus, it might not have been the wisest of actions. But let's all assume good faith and discuss what sort of reference standards are acceptable—everyone here is trying to write an encyclopedia, but we have different ideas of how to do it. So let's get general agreement on what kinds of things should be included in the article. If I create a website that says that Bush had an affair with someone and thus ought to be impeached, that shouldn't appear here (because my personal website isn't a "reliable source"). Partisan organizations are something of a gray area, but policy above seems to suggest that they should be avoided where possible. Stories in print references like the NYT and LAT definitely can be included. The question is where we draw the line on what constitutes a "real"/verifiable rationale to impeach Bush, and that needs to be discussed before editing on this article proceeds. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just now, Nescio posted an RFC against me regarding this article - see link here. Then, right after that, he falsely posted a link in the "Approved pages - have met the two person threshold" section here. Then after I caught him red-handed, his posting was modified by User:Jaranda, with an edit summary of "Move MereCat up, not approved yet, not even properly made". Merecat 03:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI, this is the first time I do this so I just made a mistake. Redhanded my eye! Nomen Nescio 04:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone's lives would be made easier if we stopped the tit for tat sockpuppetry accusations and the RFCs and just discussed the issues. I don't get the impression that either of you is trying to purposefully damage the encyclopedia, though you would each probably disagree with that assessment of the other person. Would you at least both be willing to call a truce on all arguments over past behavior and focus on the article itself? Let's specify groundrules for the discussion and get started. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer but Merecat has gone to far. He is unwilling to discuss, has now started personal attacks and I am out of patience. If he is willing to apologize for his wild accusations and promises to discuss. Nomen Nescio 04:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is trying to use an RFC to beat me into silence. More than 4 days ago on this talk page, I asked Nescio for mediation to solve some of our interpersonal differences. See my offer here. He has not responded yet. I ask that this complaint by Nescio be remanded to mediation. I also ask that a checkuser be performed against Nescio to see if he was the one who posted this false allegation. I have asked him four times if these edits were done by him, but he refuses to answer. As far as the RFC goes, I think it's unwarranted. I do however, seek an answer to the question I've been asking Nescio, namely: Nescio, yes or no, did you make these edits?

Merecat 04:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is trying to accept the offer by Spangineer. Your response is to continue your vendetta. Please stop and give Spangineer a change to mediate or else I will procede with the RFC. BTW, I did respond to your invitation earlier by saying your behaviour had improved and as such I thought it would work itself out. Nomen Nescio 05:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked Nescio for mediation 4 days ago. He never replied. See my comments on the RFC page, here

Is Nescio now saying he wants mediation?

Merecat 05:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, contrary to what I thought and told you, there is a staggering lack of improvement. Since you now have started with personal attacks and stalking, the only way to prevent this getting out of hand is mediation by a third party. You evidently was not willing to have a civilized debate. Nomen Nescio 05:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are now saying you want mediation, let me know. From your answer, it's not clear to me. Merecat 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, thank you for delisting your RFC against me [36]. Please let me know how you would like to proceed in increasing the rapport between us. Merecat 05:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Common Dreams and AlterNet

I intend to delete those links which go to Common Dreams as being to a web site which is too partisan and therefore not a reliable source. I recognize that others here have asserted that Common Dreams is reprinting things which have been published eleswhere, such as The Nation. Suffice it to say, if that is the case, then it's best to link directly to the original article, bypassing Common Dreams and any associated baggage of blog-like and/or other POV issues. Also, this is not an endorsement of any of the original articles. Those sources and the articles themselves must still pass muster. As for AlterNet, I will be deleting all AlterNet links I have seen here as they are all blog pages and as such are definately not reliable sources and certainly carry with them large amounts of blog commentary which is unacceptable as a source. Any concerns, please see the above dialogs about links and comment here. Merecat 14:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you here.

Anything from Alertnet or Common Dreams could not possibly be NPOV.--RWR8189 14:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I will wait for additional feedback before taking substantial action on these particular points. Merecat 15:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please observe that these sites repost articles by other sites, i.e. NYT, WaPo, The Nation, et cetera. Furthermore, maybe in the interest of our renewed truce it may be better to discuss and use a mediator to prevent another erxplosion of emotions. Nomen Nescio 17:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to cite material that is simply being reposted at one of these sites, please instead cite the original source (e.g. the NYT or WaPo). Christopher Parham (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Although you have a point, this still does not warrant deletion of these references. If I can find the original, other editors must be capable of doing the same. Nomen Nescio 04:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If Merecat is serious about mediation he should not impose his rewriting the article, and wait untill our difference of opinion has been resolved through that process. Please kindly await the mediation process. Although I have retracted the RFC that does not mean that if you still refuse to follow civil rules I won't relist it again. Nomen Nescio 17:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, if you are sincere, then I submit that you need to stop following behind each and every one of my edits to this article with reverts, such as this one you just did here and here. Suffice it to say, my edits have be declared in advance as to intent and design, and at least two other editors have agreed with me about AlterNet (see above). I urge you to cease reverting me and instead defend Alternet as a source. Suffice it to say, the intro blurb about the "Center" was also based on an Alternet posting and as such, has been deleted - that and for other reasons I have already noted. At this point, I have restored my edits by reverting you here and here. If you revert me on this point again today, I expect that you will force me to re-initiate my focus on holding you to account for these edits. I'd prefer we get along, but I note that you have not replied to my inquiry about rapport, so I will state it again: Please let me know how you would like to proceed in increasing the rapport between us. Also, if you again threaten me with RFC over your grab-bag of complaints here, then I will cease speaking to you here and recommend that you go ahead with the RFC. Merecat 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Again I stress that making these disputed edits should be postponed and dealed with in the mediation process. By nevertheless imposing your rewrite you clearly are unwilling to have a mediator resolve the issues. If you are interested in mediation leave the edits, wait and suggest them as part of the mediation! Nomen Nescio 17:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning

To editors of this article: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please ask the relevant editor to refrain from making disputed edits and await mediation. Nomen Nescio 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, the onus is on you at the point. You filed an RFC, then you delisted it in favor of the mediation (finally) which I suggested to you 4 days prior. By all means, go right ahead and round up a mediator - I await your action in that regard. Or, if you prefer, go right ahead and restore the RFC - it matters not to me as I am fully prepared to counter-complain against you vigorously if need be. Suffice it to say, if you don't stop reverting me en masse, the likelyhood that we'll be able to get along warmly, is low, in my view. And frankly, I don't see how you offer that Alternet is a reliable source. You do know that Alternet is a left-wing blog, yes? It's no more reliable a source than FreeRepublic or any of the right-wing crank sites. Merecat 17:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

By not awaiting that mediation you are being uncivil, disruptive and bullying me into accepting your edits which we were trying to get to through mediation. Thank you for cooperating. Nomen Nescio 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with the histronics - if anyone has been heavy-handed here, it's you with the "RFC", "RFC" threats. Merecat 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, please see Status_quo_ante_bellum. And yes, you are being uncivil. RFC is not heavy-handed or a threat. Kevin Baas^talk 17:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, I am familiar with the term Status_quo_ante_bellum. It's interesting that you point out a Latin phrase which refers to "war". Frankly, the suggestion that we need to go back to how "things were before the war" makes no sense to me for two reasons: 1) I do not view my interaction here as warfare and 2) there is no such thing as a fixed status quo state to articles on the wiki. Certainly you must know this and also you must know that I aim to make some changes to this article - I've made that quite clear. Where we disagree is that you and Nescio are generally opposed to my edits here, where as I think for that the most part, they have been just fine. I'll simply point out that in regards to you, I am not the one with an anti-Bush screed on my user page - you are. So then, if there is something afoot here, perhaps you might want to consider that you and Nescio are not as neutral on the topic of GWB, etc., as some of your protestations and comments might infer. Merecat 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And I would venture to say that RFC is mature at this point. Kevin Baas^talk 18:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, it was Merecat that after, what appered to be, a truce was reached decided to continue editing. This clearly does not constitute a good faith effort. Nomen Nescio 04:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)