Talk:Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush/Archive 3

message: The article is now protected due to the escalation in reverts. Please note that as it is always the case, one side will complain that the wrong version was protected], but please note that Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Once you are ready to resume editing, please place a request at WP:RFPP. Have a nice day. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is protected 

message: Based on the length of the page at this date, plus the fact the discussion seems to be starting up fresh after the RfC, I have archived previous comments. Thatcher131 00:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind if i dearchive you earlier brilliant solution? EricR 01:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, although it didn't attract a lot of applause at the time. Thatcher131 01:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments move to archive 

message: Nescio, I am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog here at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready. Merecat 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made your point. This is not a duel and no one is keeping score, although we are paying attention to both sides.  If he chooses not to reply you can't force him; the test will be to see how each individual behaves once the article is unprotected.Thatcher131 19:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  @ 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC) - Merecat is still waiting for Nescio's response 

message: Despite the agonising wait for some of you, I hope you had a good easter. I did. Sun, sea, walk, tea. Great. BTW, having a wikibreak for some days would not hurt other editors IMHO. It might instill some patience. Nomen Nescio 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back, no sun, wind and rain, but still enjoyable. EricR 01:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Easter

message: Responding to the perceived problems with cite quantity and quality:
*Although I realize there are alot of references, it is counterproductive to have a controversial article as this without sufficient sources to address the inevitable objections. People will delete part of the article on the grounds of OR, as is already the case. The references ensure that nobody can assert that the article is not verifiable.
*As to the quality, I do not object when people feel they have to counter the allegations and use so-called "right-wing" sources. The point of NPOV is not that every source is NPOV, but that all major points are mentioned. If editors agree to insert the views of proponents and opponents, the end result will be a balanced piece on the subject. If that is not an option please explain what references exactly you find unacceptable and why.
*More specific I have looked at what kind of sources are used at this point. I did a fast check so I the figures could be slightly off, but the general idea I get is that the allegation that the majority is left wing, or blog, is not correct.
**Legal analysts/organisations/Human Rights organisations 38
**Democratic politicians/party                             4
**News agencies                                           39
**"Left-wing" oriented                                    22
Two examples of how it might look
The current method, in which all references that pertain to a sentence are incorporated into one cite:
:As Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror, President Bush has asserted broad war powers to protect the American people. These have been used to justify policies connected with the war. Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, Elizabeth de la Vega, AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers. Abuse of Power
*The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
*The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, January 13, 2006
*The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, Findlaw, January 09, 2006
*How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"? Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw, January 5, 2006
*The President Does Not Know Best By Elizabeth de la Vega, Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 19, 2006
*Impeaching George W. Bush Alternet, March 6, 2006
*If Judges Won't Stand Up to Bush, Who Will? Common Dreams, March 5, 2006
*IMPEACH BUSH: NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT IN CHILE, NOT IN THE U.S. The Santiago Times, Dec 21, 2005
:The Bush administration denies this allegation by explaining that the President is only asserting his Constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the country.
If I understand correctly this is what Merecat prefers.
:As Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror, President Bush has asserted broad war powers to protect the American people. These have been used to justify policies connected with the war. Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, Elizabeth de la Vega, AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers. The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, January 13, 2006The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, Findlaw, January 09, 2006How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"? Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw, January 5, 2006The President Does Not Know Best By Elizabeth de la Vega, Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 19, 2006Impeaching George W. Bush Alternet, March 6, 2006If Judges Won't Stand Up to Bush, Who Will? Common Dreams, March 5, 2006IMPEACH BUSH: NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT IN CHILE, NOT IN THE U.S. The Santiago Times, Dec 21, 2005
:The Bush administration denies this allegation by explaining that the President is only asserting his Constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the country.
The first looks better because we do not have a million cites following a statement. The result is the same, because in both one sentence is covered by several sources.
Example
 Nomen Nescio 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion regarding references

message: ...he said modestly.  I think the problem, boiled down to its simplest, is that it is very hard to write a verifiable neutral article on a controversial topic when all the sources are partisan.  I'm sure a Clinton impeachment article would be much easier to write today than in the middle of events, too.  You're arguing over whether a particular group is partisan and how to interpret the Geneva Convention and complicated court rulings.  That's not what WP editors should be doing -- we should be reporting things that have already been decided.
I propose rewriting the article not as a neutral account of a topic (impeachment), but as a balanced account of a partisan debate.  Acknowledge that there are two sides and present both sides fairly.  Here is an example of what I mean.
NSA warrantless surveillance
*US Representative Adam Ant said in speech on the floor of the House that President Bush should be investigated for possible impeachment for authorizing the interception of US citizens' electronic communication without warrants. Syndicated columnist Bill Baker and Democratic party official Chatty Cathy have endorsed this view.  An analysis produced by the American Liberal Caucus show blah blah blah etc etc etc...therefore the warrantless searches violate the 5th amendment of the Constitution, and by authorizing the searches President Bush has violated the Constitution and committed an impeachable offense.
*Administration representatives including Diane Dale, Earl Egglund and Frank Fosdeck counter that the power to conduct foreign surveillance is granted to the President by the Constitution and can not be revoked or limited by an act of the legislative branch.  Legal analysts including Judge George Gont and former attorneys general Hal Hamburg (Reagan administration) and Ida Inkvist (Clinton administration) concur, although this is disputed by former Justice Department lawyer Jack Jones.  President Bush said in a press conference, "If you're talking to your grandmother, we aren't interested. If you're talking to Al Queda, we should probably be listening."  Republican columnist Kam Klink points out that Presidents Carter, Reagan and Clinton also authorized warrantless searches, and Clinton supported the controversial CIA Eschelon program.
*For further information see NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
The point here is to present a fair and balanced account of a highly partisan debate.  Don't get too caught up in the underlying "truth" of the situation (regarding WMD or the NSA or who was responsible for the Katrina response); just report what other people said.  Don't try to analyse "the truth" yourself.  Don't get bogged down in nitpicking sources.  If Mother Jones publishes an editorial about impeachment, don't worry that it's a partisan source, just balance it with an editorial from National Review.  Also, don't get too in depth on any one issue; the chances are the specific wikipedia article will be more comprehensive and up to date.  Summarize the main points with special attention to how it is relevant to impeachment (as opposed to a general recitation of Bush controversies) and link to the main article.  I also agree with Theron that a brief introduction to how impeachment works would be of benefit.
It will be necessary to come up with some agreement on whose arguments may be quoted.  Elected officials, current and retired government officials yes, bloggers probably no, prominent public gadflies maybe, for example.  You don't want to turn wikipedia into the DU or Free Republic. Some discrimination and discretion will be needed.  Also, don't get too caught up in analyzing the "truth" of people's arguments.  If someone has made an argument based on bad facts, don't fight about it, just find someone who made a better argument.
Thatcher131 22:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My brilliant solution

message: :If you explain why this site is unreliable. You are right that sources must be reliable, so if you can show that this site is not to be trusted I agree. Nomen Nescio 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nescio gives conditional agreement

message: Nescio, if your idea of compromise is to agree to disregard wiki guidelines/policies regarding sources, then I will not join you in that. It is my contention I have demonstrated that links to Alternet hosted material do not qualify as acceptable sources under wiki guidelines/policies. At this time, I am not interested in getting off track with you. I am solely interested in either a) you agree that Alternet is not a reliable source and is therefore not to be used or b) you prove per wiki guidelines/policies that this premise is incorrect. My focus on this article has been fully narrowed to this sole issue. I will not entertain any entreaties from you to commingle this issue of Alternet being valid/not with any other issues. Nescio, your offer of "I already said I would not object to removing it as part of finding compromise..." is unacceptable to me as it attempts to commingle issues. My sole interest in talking with you is to be certain that we can reach agreement on the proper application of wiki guidelines and policies to the editing of this article. And, as I see it, if we can not reach agreement on something as simple as which sources pass muster with wiki guidelines/policies, then there is no rational reason for us to attempt more complex, multi-faceted and/or contingent type agreements. As it stands now Nescio, you are either going to have to agree with my premise which is: Links to Alternet hosted material are unacceptable as a source under wiki guidelines/policies or you are going to have to demonstrate that under wiki guidelines/policies they are acceptable. As far as I am concerned, regarding what is and what is not a reliable source, this point is non-negotiable: Wiki guidelines and policies must be determinative. Merecat 20:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merecat replies to Nescio 20:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 

message: I'm looking forward to the protect removal so that others can start editing this article.  Morton devonshire 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not characterize my position. My comments speak for themselves. My position stated above pertains only to my discussion with Nescio. I am going to go only one step at a time with him, no more. If and only if, Nescio and I can resolve our disagreement regarding the Alternet links, I will happily discuss other things with him. At no time EricR, did I say I would not talk wiht you. What questions do you have for me? Merecat 00:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since merecat has disqualified himself as good faith editor (surprise!) we should continue on finding compromise without him. If all editors work together to address the issues at hand we can get it unprotected. Nomen Nescio 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: My response directly preceeding this paragraph has disproven your contention regarding Alternet (which you do not respond to, again big surprise) and at the same time shows that you are not interested in resolution: i.e. this disqualifies you as editor to this page. Nomen Nescio 11:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When will the protect block be removed

message: Nescio has begun vandalizing this talk page, so as to try to change my outline of my comments. See these edits:
# 16:54, 19 April 2006
# 16:55, 19 April 2006
Merecat 18:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can somebody else intervene and change these clearly provocative and incorrect headings into a more neutral form? Again Merecat is making highly unfriendly edits, (totally against the spirit of good faith) and remains silent on his part of our dispute (meeting me halfway). Nomen Nescio 18:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Nomen Nescio 13:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alteration of talk headers by Nescio is contested 

message: We have again seen that Merecat is unwilling to resolve the dispute, therefore I would ask everybody else to start discussing what needs to be improved. Now Merecat no longer can be trusted with serious attempts to find consensus, they need to step in and voice their concerns. The sooner we solve the issues at hand, the sooner this page is unprotected! Nomen Nescio 12:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merecat refuses to discuss, again

message: I have replied, replied, replied and replied some more, etc. At this point, Nescio's complaints about dialog and resolving disputes, etc., are baseless. Merecat 05:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nescio's ad hominem attack against Merecat is baseless 

message: Nescio is running around complaining, but he has been fully answered: The onus for advancing the Merecat/Nescio dialog is currently and has been for sometime, on Nescio. If that dialog does not move forward, it's Nescio's fault. Merecat 13:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merecat answers Nescio's false allegations

message: Alright, we have:
   1. ↑ a b c d e f g The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff
   2. ↑ Arguments in general.
          * Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment originally Web-posted by House Judiciary Committee member Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
          * The Impeachable Mr. Bush An Aggregation of High Crimes and Misdemeanors By Ralph Nader, CounterPunch, January 28 / 29, 2006
          * The I-Word is Gaining Ground by Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation, December 27, 2005
          * Bush's Last, Best Hope: the Democrats A Popular Groundswell for Impeachment By DAVE LINDORFF, CounterPunch, March 7, 2006
          * Five Vermont Towns Vote to Impeach Bush Associated Press, March 7, 2006
          * Plenty of opportunities to impeach Bush by Diane E. Dees, Mother Jones, April 05, 2006
          * Raising the Issue of Impeachment by John Nichols, The Nation, December 20, 2005
   3. ↑ The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
   4. ↑ Impeaching George W. Bush By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet, March 6, 2006.
   5. ↑ Wiretapping possibly illegal
          * 'Specific' info on NSA eavesdropping? A new lawsuit may have what other cases don't: official records about those under surveillance By Brad Knickerbocker, The Christian Science Monitor, March 06, 2006
          * What the President Ordered in This Case Was a Crime" by John Nichols, The Nation, January 23, 2006
          * Watching What You Say Tim Shorrock, The Nation, March 2, 2006
   6. ↑ LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT U.S. Department of Justice, January 19, 2006
   7. ↑ Congressional Research Service
          * Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information January 5, 2006
          * Statutory Procedures Under Which Congress Is To Be Informed of U.S. Intelligence Activities, Including Covert Actions January 18, 2006
   8. ↑ American Bar Association
          * AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES, February 13, 2006
          * Lawyers Group Criticizes Surveillance Program Washington Post, February 14, 2006
   9. ↑ Former FISA judges
          * Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program By ERIC LICHTBLAU, The New York Times, March 29, 2006
          * It’s Official… By Christy Hardin Smith, March 28th, 2006
  10. ↑ a b c d e f Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush, 108nd Congress H.Res.XX, by Francis A. Boyle, professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law, January 17, 2003
  11. ↑ a b The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
  12. ↑ a b c d Grounds for Impeachment by Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive,March 8, 2006
  13. ↑ Wiretapping probably impeachable offense
          * An Impeachable Offense? Bush Admits Authorizing NSA to Eavesdrop on Americans Without Court Approval Democracy Now, December 19th, 2005
          * George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachable; Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, December 30, 2005
          * Is Clinton's history in Bush's future? by Rosa Brooks, Los Angeles Times, December 30, 2005
          * Time for a Special Prosecutor Bush's NSA Spying Program Violates the Law By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, CounterPunch, March 4 / 5, 2006
          * Why Should Anyone Worry About Whose Communications Bush and Cheney Are Intercepting, If It Helps To Find Terrorists? By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, February 24, 2006
  14. ↑ No official inquiry into wiretapping
          * Senate Panel Blocks Eavesdropping Probe By Walter Pincus, Washington Post, March 8, 2006
          * Senate Republicans Choose Bush Over Country on Domestic Spying
  15. ↑ Constitutional challenge to invasion of Iraq
          * John Doe I v. President Bush
  16. ↑ Weapons of Mass Destruction
          * Iraq's WMD Plans Were Preliminary CBS News, January 07, 2004
          * Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs CNN, January 26, 2004
          * See also Duelfer Report
          * WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications By Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, George Perkovich, with Alexis Orton, Carnegie Endowment Report, January 2004
  17. ↑ Link with Al Qaeda
          * Levin Releases Newly Declassified Intelligence Documents on Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship Documents show Administration claims were exaggerated, by Carl Levin, April 15, 2005
          * Another Iraq story gets debunked By Dave Zweifel, The Capital Times
          * Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between Saddam and al Qaeda The Memory Hole
  18. ↑ a b Blowing Cheney's Cover Ray McGovern, April 10, 2006
  19. ↑ a b c d Selectively disseminating information
          * Why 'leaker in chief' charge harms the president By Linda Feldmann, The Christian Science Monitor, April 10, 2006
  20. ↑ Misrepresenting the facts surrounding Iraq
          * The Impeachment of George W. Bush, by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
          * A Firm Basis for Impeachment By Robert Scheer, AlterNet, July 18, 2003
          * The Case for Impeachment By John Dean, FindLaw.com, June 11, 2003
          * In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat Center for American Progress, January 29, 2004]
          * Millions Protest Possible War with Iraq February 19, 2003
  21. ↑ Downing Street memo
          * Another Iraq Memo Revealed: Colin Powell Opposed War Without Second U.N. Resolution Posted by Think Progress March 28, 2006
          * The secret Downing Street memo SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY DAVID MANNING, The Times, July 23, 2002
  22. ↑ FOIA request
          * Just hearsay, or the new Watergate tapes? By David Paul, Salon, June 06, 2005
          * 52 House members file FOIA request seeking documents related to Downing Street minutes Raw Story, June 30, 2005
  23. ↑ "Biological laboratories"
          * Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War By Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, April 12, 2006
  24. ↑ War of aggression
          * War Crimes: Goose and Gander By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, March 13, 2006
          * Condi, War Crimes & the Press By Robert Parry, Consortiumnews.com, April 3, 2006
  25. ↑ Violating International Law
          * TASK FORCE ON TREATMENT OF ENEMY COMBATANTS CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES RECOMMENDATION by AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
          * U.S. Officials Misstate Geneva Convention Requirements by Human Rights Watch, January 28, 2002
          * Findings Report: Enemy Combatants and the Geneva Conventions by the Council on Foreign Relations, December 12, 2002
          * GUANTANAMERA: The Continuing Debate Over The Legal Status Of Guantanamo Detainees By JOANNE MARINER, FindLaw, March 11, 2002
  26. ↑ Impeachment for violating the Geneva Conventions
          * Is There a Case for Impeachment? Harper's Magazine, Edited selections from a forum moderated by Sam Seder and featuring Representative John Conyers Jr., John Dean, Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, Lewis Lapham, and Michael Ratner, held March 2, 2006 at Town Hall in New York City.
          * The Case for Impeachment - Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush by Lewis H. Lapham, Harper's Magazine, February 27, 2006.
          * Rally to Support Rep. John Conyers and AfterDowningStreet.org by Mike Ferner, Veterans For Peace, June 16, 2005
  27. ↑ Torture by proxy
          * Pentagon Memo on Torture-Motivated Transfer Cited By Ken Silverstein, The Los Angeles Times, December 08, 2005]
          * Torture by Proxy The New Yorker, February 14, 2005
  28. ↑ Gonzales Defends Transfer of Detainees By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, March 8, 2005
  29. ↑ Legal position of rendition
          * U.N. Blasts Practice of Outsourcing Torture by Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service
          * No Exceptions to the Ban on Torture By Louise Arbour, The San Diego Union Tribune, December 07, 2005
  30. ↑ The Interrogation Documents: Debating U.S. Policy and Methods the memos written as part of the war on terror
  31. ↑ War crimes warning
          * Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings By Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, May 19, 2004
          * Torture and Accountability by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, June 28, 2005
          * US Lawyers Warn Bush on War Crimes By Grant McCool, Lawyers Against the War, Global Policy Forum, January 28, 2003
  32. ↑ US definition of torture
          * Judge's anger at US torture by Richard Norton-Taylor and Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, February 17, 2006
          * Torture as National Policy By Dahr Jamail, Tomdispatch.com, March 9, 2006
  33. ↑ Torture as policy?
          * Memorandum for Inspector General, Department of the Navy July 07, 2004
          * THE MEMO -How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted by JANE MAYER, The New Yorker, February 20, 2006
          * How the Pentagon Came to Adopt Criminal Abuse as Official Policy by Marty Lederman, February 20, 2006
  34. ↑ We don't torture
          * The President says "We do not torture." We look at what has surfaced so far FactCheck.org, December 19, 2005
          * The US has used torture for decades. All that's new is the openness about it Naomi Klein, The Guardian, December 10, 2005
          * Fun Bits About American Torture In many ways, the U.S. is now just as inhumane and brutal as any Third World regime. Oh well? By Mark Morford, SF Gate, December 16, 2005
  35. ↑ U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison, By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, March 3, 2006
  36. ↑ UN calls for Guantanamo closure BBC, Read the full UN report into Guantanamo Bay, February 16, 2006
  37. ↑ Accountability
          * Fmr. NY Congresswoman Holtzman Calls For President Bush and His Senior Staff To Be Held Accountable for Abu Ghraib Torture Democracy Now, June 30th, 2005
          * The Gonzales Indictment By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, January 19, 2005
          * The Quaint Mr. Gonzales By Marjorie Cohn, La Prensa San Diego Bilingual Newspaper, November 19, 2004
          * The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
          * Command's Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan Human Rights First
          * Who is accountable for Army's descent into torture? By David R. Irvine and Deborah Pearlstein, Salt Lake Tribune, March 04, 2006
          * Dahr Jamail Follows the Trail of Torture
  38. ↑ Plame's identity not known
          * Office of Special Counsel all the material made public by Fitzgerald
          * October 28, 2005 Indictment: US v Libby
  39. ↑ Libby: 'Superiors' Approved Leak CBS/AP, Feb. 9, 2006
  40. ↑ Bush authorized disclosure
          * White House Declines to Counter Leak Claim By PETE YOST, Forbes, April 07, 2006
          * Libby Says Bush Authorized Leaks By Murray Waas, National Journal, April 6, 2006
          * Bush: Hands Possibly as Dirty as Scooter Libby's Flashback: Bush Impeachment Not Out of the Question April 6th, 2006
          * Bush at Center of Intelligence Leak By Jason Leopold, Truthout, April 06, 2006
          * The deception Bush can't spin Libby's testimony shows that Bush disclosed national secrets for political gain — and makes Bush's statements about finding the leaker ludicrous By Joe Conason, Salon, April 07, 2006
          * Bush authorized leak of Iraq intelligence estimate, indicted ex-Cheney aide says RAW STORY, April 6, 2006
  41. ↑ Disclosure legal?
          * The Truth About Lewis "Scooter" Libby's Statements to the Grand Jury Claiming the President Authorized a Leak of Classified Information The President and Vice President Are Not In the Clear Yet by John Dean, FindLaw, April 7, 2006
          * Poof! Presidential Magic Turns National Secrets Into Judy Miller "Exclusive" by Arianna Huffington, April 06, 2006
  42. ↑ Did Bush ly?
          * Did Bush Lie to Fitzgerald? By Robert Parry, Consortium News, April 07, 2006
          * Memo to Sunday Talkers: Please Get the Answers the American People Cannot by Representative John Conyers, Jr., April 07, 2006
          * Another White House is buying silence By Derrick Z. Jackson, The Boston Globe, April 8, 2006
          * President Bush, 2003: 'Leaks of Classified Information Are a Bad Thing' By E&P Staff, Editor & Publisher April 06, 2006
  43. ↑ a b Uncommon way of declassifying
          * The Latest Plame Smear: Does Fred Hiatt Even Read the Washington Post? by Jane Hamsher, Huffington Post, April 10, 2006
          * 'The Washington Post': At War With Itself The newspaper's editorial page on Sunday declared Scooter Libby's notorious 2003 gift to reporters "The Good Leak." On the same paper's front page two reporters thoroughly debunked the notion by Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher, April 10, 2006
  44. ↑ a b Final Jeopardy By Elizabeth de la Vega, TomDispatch.com, April 09, 2006
  45. ↑ Lying impeachable
          * Leaking, Lying and Burning Covert Agents from the Oval Office - The Impeachment Clock Just Clicked Forward By DAVE LINDORFF, CounterPunch, April 7--9, 2006
          * The Leaker-in-Chief By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout, April 07, 2006
  46. ↑ Hurricane Katrina
          * Ramsey Clark on Hurricane Katrina Ramsey Clarke, September 6, 2005
          * POLITICS AND CULTURE/EAST AND WEST: Impeach George W. Bush by Robert R. Thompson, PopMatters, October 03, 2005
          * Katrina, Bush and Cheney Grounds for Impeachment By FRANCIS BOYLE, September 16, 2005
          * Greens Call for Impeachment of Bush and Accomplices for Crimes Against Humanity Due to the Preventable Deaths of Thousands in New Orleans Green Party of Humboldt County, August 1, 2005
          * Hurricane Katrina Huffed and Puffed and Laid President Bush’s Incompetence Bare Sunday Independent, September 4, 2005
          * Hurricane George
          * The Impeachment of George W. Bush The Nation, January 30, 2006
  47. ↑ Responsibility Katrina
          * THE MISERABLE RESPONSE TO KATRINA - How Emergency Management Failed New Orleans By Farhad Manjoo, Der Spiegel, September 7, 2005
          * Brown puts blame on Louisiana officials CNN, September 28, 2005
          * Former FEMA Director Brown Blames 'Dysfunctional Louisiana' for Katrina Response; Lawmakers Mock Him by LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
          * Reporting on Bush pre-Katrina briefing, NY Times, Wash. Post, USA Today entirely forgot Bush claim that no one anticipated levee breaches Media Matters, March 02, 2006
  48. ↑ Kathleen Babineaux Blanco
          * Just days after Bush aide lied about Blanco in Wash. Post article, the Post noted Democrats' "harsh rhetoric," which "could create a backlash" Media Matters, September 08, 2005
          * Brown blames Gov. Blanco By Stephen Dinan, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, September 28, 2005
  49. ↑ Abuse of Power
          * The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
          * The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, January 13, 2006
          * The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, Findlaw, January 09, 2006
          * How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"? Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw, January 5, 2006
          * The President Does Not Know Best By Elizabeth de la Vega, Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 19, 2006
          * Impeaching George W. Bush Alternet, March 6, 2006
          * If Judges Won't Stand Up to Bush, Who Will? Common Dreams, March 5, 2006
          * IMPEACH BUSH: NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT IN CHILE, NOT IN THE U.S. The Santiago Times, Dec 21, 2005
Which is kinda long. I would say we should focus on trimming the ones w/more than 4 links.  I guess just redact them from above, and append them below.  That will also give us a convenient way to discuss them individually, if need be. Kevin Baastalk 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin and Nescio discuss links 

message: "Articles with unsourced statements"
Since the body of data which sources and proofs the assorted arguments is very large, how should that be handled for pages?
It seems to me that the rational answer is to create // discussion pages emanating from this page to cover the main arguments. These
i suppose could later be deleted or merged or compressed.
Prometheuspan 17:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your preceeding section was a annotated cut & paste from "truthout". that's a copyright violation and was deleted. Please do not repost that here. Merecat 17:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions as newbie regarding compilation process. 

message: This section moved to: Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/copyrviolation
Please do not repost this here - it's a copyright violation.
Merecat 23:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it from that page -- please do not violate copyright anywhere on Wikipedia. We are not licensed to reprint that content. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I said, but Prometheuspan had already reposted it here once after I had deleted it and I did not want an revert war trying got get rid of it again. Thanks for fixing that. Merecat 05:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: valerie plame case

message: This article really has no purpose.  There is already the Movement to impeach George W. Bush, and this issue is addressed in several other places, so I see no reason to actually keep it.  Additionally, it seems pretty clear that ever finding a 'neutral' version of such a polarizing figure and, in particular, heated political issue is simply not possible.  Just looking at the countless templates tells me that.  I say this in as neutral a way as possible--please, do not tell me I am being anti- or pro-bush.  I think this article should be deleted (not being an administrator, though, I can't add the deletion box).  Thanks, Theonlyedge 01:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, you don't have to be an Admin to nominate a page -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion  If you do it, I will support the Afd.  Cheers.  Morton devonshire 06:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: me too. Merecat 06:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have noticed it was recently voted not to delete. Feel free to read why it was not deleted. Of course, we can nominate on a weekly basis but that is hardly a good faith contribution. Since nobody feels the need to explain explicitly what is wrong with the article (what sentence is incorrect or POV, what rebuttal is needed), yet another AFD is blunt, uncooperative and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Nomen Nescio 14:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of this page? 

message: Regarding your interpolated comments (some many of which, they verge on SPAM): In particular, I see you keep referring to "noteworthy". Please supply a wiki link to where we can see that term in it's proper context as part of a wiki Guideline. Ater all, since "noteworthy" is so "noteworthy" to you, I'm guessing that you think there is a "noteworthy" guideline that talks about ""noteworthy" edits which are "noteworthy", right? PS: Thanks for not again posting the copyright violation material from "truthout" on this page. A smaller-minded person than yourself, might have retaliated with talk page spam after being rebuked like that. I'm glad to see that's not you - very "noteworthy"!  Merecat 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message to Prometheuspan 

message: Long long ago, in a galaxy far away, I got in a disagreement on a wikipedia talk page (One-hit wonders in the UK, if it matters), over the details of what should have gone in the article. When I felt the bristles start to rise, I simply conceded, removed the page from my watchlist, and started working on some of the 1,092,968 other articles we have to work on instead. How is that article now? Did I get my way? I don't know, I have never looked at it again. As one editor, it didn't matter what I did, as long as I didn't harm the quality of the encyclopaedia. It is clear that the main warriors here, hopefully they know who they are, are harming wikipedia far more with their revert warring, RfCs and general spillover problems than any kind of perceived problems with this article itself. The AfD for this article reads like the climactic scene from a John Wayne film. The only way I can see this article progressing is if the two perpetrators both leave this article and never look at it again. There is plenty of other work to be done here on Wikipedia, and I mean plenty. Forget about this article, there are plenty more people to work on it. Jdcooper 16:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. Another alternative would be that genuine consensus will eventually be reached. Merecat 18:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, in a galaxy far away maybe. The temperature gets too heated, the thermometer breaks, all that ever happens is that there's glass everywhere and no-one has the presence of mind to fetch the dustpan and brush. Are you really saying there are no other articles worth your time, effort, expertise and knowledge? Or that there is no way this article could ever survive without you? Jdcooper 18:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine, never mind, twas but a suggestion. I knew there was a reason I didn't edit politics articles :) (aside from the fact that other people know more about politics than me, naturally) Jdcooper 19:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merecat said "No, what I am saying is that my principal foil here Nescio (and a few others), appear as editors at a number of politics-related articles which I contend have excess POV. I further assert that I am making reasonable attempts to bring some of those articles closer to NPOV."  - I think it should be pointed out that if this is true, then it is likely that the reverse is also true.  We happen to be editing on the same pages, i imagine all three of us take an interest in politics.  i imagine all three of us contend that the articles could be made more POV, and are making what we feel to be reasonable attempts in that direction. Yet you make this your principle foil?  I don't make it mine - i see nothing objectionable in it. Kevin Baastalk 15:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Wars 

message: [User:Prometheuspan|Prometheuspan]] 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the SunTimes link: "Leave it to the Democratic-controlled state Legislature to find an obscure way to attempt to oust President Bush." Makes what a current event? That biased, partisan DEMS seek the ouster of Bush? There is no "event", only a partisan agenda. Merecat 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments illegally deleted by merecat 

message: <<Note; This was deleted by merecat till endnote>>
*hi there. well, this is just first pass for the day and i am going to keep it really brief. 
	 
*The notability of the group making this "Rationale" is allready established by the OTHER article. 
Movement to impeach George W. Bush 	 
	 
*IT IS THAT Group, whom for logics sake we shall term "group C" who is making this RATIONALE. 	 
	 
*This article is thus a neutral exploration of that groups rationale to impeach. This is noteworthy for the following reasons; 	 
	 
*1; Literally thousands of people, working on literally hundreds of different issues, believe that there are 101 good reasons to impeach. 	 
 
*2; If that poll is increased to international scope, the numbers rise easilly into the millions and probably tens of millions of people on earth that believe that there are grounds to impeach. 	 
*3; A small fraction of those actually have access to the interent. 	 
*4; A smaller fraction of those have the spare time and energy to devote to arguing and belaboring the point with the rest of us. 	 
*5; That still leaves literally hundreds of people if you only count Blogs, and at least thousands of people if you count only participants of the sited internet communities. 	 
 
*This article is a wikipedia report, regarding those people, their rationale, and their thinking and process. 	 
	 
*This can only be done in the perview of wikipedia if there is a consistant, and lucid "Minority Echo" from the camp of the Republicans and Conservatives, and so those people are freely invited to make good faith edits in the style of a minority Echo. 	 
*That is not a dialogue, and it is certainly not an argument. One side shall present its case, and the other shall present an equal length or less rebutal. 	 
 
*Now, please remove the block, or You will force me to spend the most of my day explaining why this entire conversation is rediculous. 
<<Endnote, however, this was also recovered as another thing
deleted by merecat. Till endnote>>	 
 
 =comments illegally removed by merecat= 	  	 
 *1 Suggested reasons to impeach + 
-----------------------------------------
*Reverting deletion of historical facts and insertion of bias ("partisan politics," "allegedly" when speaking of established fact, et cetera) is important to keep this article factual and neutral. Remember you deleted Katrina when it is used as reason to impeach. Nomen Nescio 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from Prometheuspan

message: Another ad hominem. Nobody is harming wikipedia, and in fact, 	 
they are working to improve wikipedias treatment of a specific 	 
topic. As an aside, there does not seem to be people waiting to pick up the slack to work on this article, and, there is no reason why those involved should leave the article, other than to make things easy for the POV of the right to have its way. 	 
Prometheuspan 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prometheuspan, please read the edit summary for this edit. The enormous quantity and loose formatting of your comments from today, would do better at a sub page. I've made one for you here: Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/ppan. If you move your material from today to that page, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Merecat 23:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  other comments illegally deleted by merecat 

message: Prometheuspan, please read the edit summary for this edit. The enormous quantity and loose formatting of your comments from today, would do better at a sub page. I've made one for you here: Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/ppan. If you move your material from today to that page, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Merecat 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message to Prometheuspan 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 

message: This page is, currently, effectively unusable. I'm not sure who's responsible (and can't be arsed trawling the page history merely to apportion blame), but I would ask that all participants in this discussion pay close attention to the readability and logical coherence of their contributions. Please read about wikipedia formatting, tidy up all material retrieved from edit histories, do not indent using spaces, do not introduce horizontal rules (particularly manual ones) into the page at apparently random locations, and do not copy huge sections of the article into the talk-page unedited. I am currently assuming good faith, but it would be easy to mistake this kind of behaviour for an attempt to deliberately frustrate the editing of this article in perpetuity — which would eventually need to be dealt with as trolling or vandalism. — JEREMY 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user who made this mess is Prometheuspan. I've tried to talk to him, but he won't listen. As a contrast, take a look at this edit he left at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Prometheuspan can obviously post clear talk page comments, so why he's made such a mess here, I don't know. Merecat 07:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Prometheuspan, please stop going beserk with outlandish claims and crazy formatting. I've asked you nicely several times to move your excess details and postings to a sub page, but you ignore me. If this page is a mess, it's because you made it that way and you won't clean up after yourself. Stop trying to shift the blame. Merecat 21:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting of this talk page

message: a list of places where merecat deleted my comments. This is only
a partial list, I will continue to search the history when i have time.
----------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49984262&oldid=49984034
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49982136&oldid=49981936 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49662384&oldid=49643309
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49662499&oldid=49643309
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49471755&oldid=49471520
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49515967&oldid=49515502 
----------------
merecat, i have now cleaned up most of the page. My claims are not
outlandish, they are factual. You deleted all of these materials,
illegally, and you are the one who is responsible for the mess.
You did not ask nicely the first few times that you illegally deleted
things, and any "ask nicely" claim you may have had is rendered
bogus by your actions which demonstrate you to be a liar, a pov pusher, a system gamer, and an illegal deletionist.
I will not put anything i have to say on any sub page, nor am i required to by any rules. I will continue to do as i am entitled
to do, and post my comments to this page.
Prometheuspan 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ready willing and able to talk. Regarding Nescio; I am not certain, but he seems to have yielded (without agreement) on the Alternet links issue. However, I've heard other comments which make me think there is no consensus on that yet (two support me and 1-2 support Nescio, Re: Alternet links). Regarding Prometheuspan; I am interested that he collect his voluminous recent comments and postings to a sub page where he and I can talk without too much clutter. He's gone on record as saying that he doesn't want to talk to me. I'm not sure where either of these points leaves me. Merecat 22:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What is an illegal deletion?  Reverts?  Vandalism?  --Tbeatty 00:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  responding to merecat 

message: Proponents of the impeachment of current President of the United States, George W. Bush, assert that one or more of President Bush's actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitionally be impeached
On the simple grounds that the authors should be able to spell constitutionally before they are allowed to argue that there is a rational argument for constitutional action. --Tbeatty 23:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, this is not a neutral statement. Many editors, in many articles, correct spelling mistakes, as they easily occur. To argue for deletion based on that, even as a joke, surely sounds like this suggestion to delete is based upon the need to suppres information uncomfortable to Mr Bush. Nomen Nescio 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? --Tbeatty 00:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article should be deleted

message: I should have been able to do this HERE, but couldn't due to being
deleted. As a point, good faith edits which add to the resource are
welcome, but it IS MY userpage, so I don't expect Merecat or anybody to go traipsing around and deleting things.
Prometheuspan 03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Prometheuspan/impeachsandbox]] 

message: For somebody that is vehemently against the use of politically influenced material, it is shocking to see Merecat use FrontPageMag.com as source. Personally I do not object to this kind of material -which should be evident to those following our discourse- but how does one explain his use of this biased source when AlterNet is apparently uneacceptable? No answer required, is rhetorical: "Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi." Nomen Nescio 02:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "FrontPageMag.com is a neoconservative online blog edited by David Horowitz and published by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, a nonprofit in Los Angeles, California established by Horowitz. Dedicated to conservative advocacy, FrontPageMag.com criticizes the Democratic party, the liberal press, the environmental movement, affirmative action, feminism, human rights organizations, labor unions, anti-war groups, and others who are critical of the George W. Bush administration." 
*You offer an excellent explanation of why biased sources should not be used. Since this is a biased source, which undoubtedly makes good stories, I think you should not introduce a double standard. If leftwing sources are disallowed, you should also say the same thing about rightwing sources! Bias is bias, even if the source is trustworthy (paraphrasing your words). 
*Having said all that, I do not object to your use of it. What I find disingenuous is your blatant objectionism regarding leftwing sources (as evidenced on this talk page) while promoting the use of rightwing material. Or, to quote Lord Northcliffe, "news is something that someone, somewhere wants to suppress, all the rest is advertising." Nomen Nescio 11:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Prometheuspan, in this: "The people and groups that are actively seeking to impeach are the ones that this article IS ABOUT.", you are mistaken. This article is titled "Rationales", not "Rationalizers". As it stands, this article is an ad-hoc grab bag of every gripe and complaint that whomever has been able to gin up against Bush. This article is no different that any other absurd "list" article, such as Reasons why Chinese live in China or Conjectures against Vitamin D or Rationales to imprison Bill Clinton for treason or Rationales to prosecute NAMBLA under the RICO act. Even so, this article is here and must be dealt with. Prometheuspan, as for your other statements and points made so far, I'd prefer that you desist from posting talk page invective which refers to me. Please focus on improvements to the article. And please do not keep posting so much material here all at once. Post a small amount at a time and give others a chance to dialog with you. Merecat 21:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And your point is? Merecat 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AlterNet revisited

message: <<The below is cut and pasted from above, because merecat can't
seem to find it.>
*hi there. well, this is just first pass for the day and i am going to keep it really brief. 
	 
*The notability of the group making this "Rationale" is allready established by the OTHER article. 
Movement to impeach George W. Bush 	 
	 
*IT IS THAT Group, whom for logics sake we shall term "group C" who is making this RATIONALE. 	 
	 
*This article is thus a neutral exploration of that groups rationale to impeach. This is noteworthy for the following reasons; 	 
	 
*1; Literally thousands of people, working on literally hundreds of different issues, believe that there are 101 good reasons to impeach. 	 
 
*2; If that poll is increased to international scope, the numbers rise easilly into the millions and probably tens of millions of people on earth that believe that there are grounds to impeach. 	 
*3; A small fraction of those actually have access to the interent. 	 
*4; A smaller fraction of those have the spare time and energy to devote to arguing and belaboring the point with the rest of us. 	 
*5; That still leaves literally hundreds of people if you only count Blogs, and at least thousands of people if you count only participants of the sited internet communities. 	 
 
*This article is a wikipedia report, regarding those people, their rationale, and their thinking and process. 	 
	 
*This can only be done in the perview of wikipedia if there is a consistant, and lucid "Minority Echo" from the camp of the Republicans and Conservatives, and so those people are freely invited to make good faith edits in the style of a minority Echo. 	 
*That is not a dialogue, and it is certainly not an argument. One side shall present its case, and the other shall present an equal length or less rebutal.
Prometheuspan 20:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly arguments should please stop now. 

message: http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1061
(original poster did not leave link for source.)
	 
1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s. 	 
 
2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war. 	 
 
3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable. 	 
	 
4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency. 	 
	 
5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression. 	 
 
6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 	 
	 
7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks. 	 
	 
8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community. 	 
	 
9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant." 	 
 
10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense. 	 
 
11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government. 	 
	 
12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief. 	 
	 
13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry. 	 
 
14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials. 	 
15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime. 	 
	 
16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist." 	 
	 
17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life. 	 
	 
18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity. 	 
	 
19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions. 	 
 
20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.
Prometheuspan 20:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Bush's crimes from the Articles of Impeachment 

message: http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html
http://pepib.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage
CounterPunch
January 17, 2003
Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush
by FRANCIS A. BOYLE
professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law
108nd Congress H.Res.XX
1st Session
Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
_______________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January __, 2003
Prometheuspan 20:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  other legal impeachment efforts 

message: The Yellowcake Connection Merecat 00:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  yellowcake 

message: As I said before, using multiple links per citation is bad. And now, I have found proof that the chief advocate of using that system, Nescio, has on another page (for all intents and purposes) conceded that I am right about this. Read Nescio's comment here. Merecat 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple links per citation is bad 

message: This article seems to be much more of an attack page than it is a serious discussion of any attempts to impeach.  This is an encyclopedia, we don't need to debate whether or not Bush should be impeached, we need to report on any debate.  After a quick glance at the AFD page it looks like almost all of the Keep votes specified that the article needed to be cleaned up.  I agree.   Having a disorganized attack page doesn't do Wikipedia any good.  The people who want to impeach Bush should go out and get started working on that.  The people who support Bush should go off and make sure he stays in office.  The rest of us will stay here and we'll write an article on your (well-sourced) actions. MilesVorkosigan 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Merecat 22:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate or attack page 

message: Just a a reminder, Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor is it a collection of links. WP:NOT Kyaa the Catlord 10:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that observation. Please remember that sourced material with its references are not considered "a soapbox" or "a collection of links." Second, with such a controversial topic it never hurts to have sufficient cites to counter the inevitable allegetion of OR or V. Nomen Nescio 11:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoah, look at all those links! 

message: I've gotten the page unprotected. Please do not undertake actions whose appropriateness is still being discussed on the talk page, and certainly do not edit war. Any disputes should remain on the talk page; they should not corrupt the history of the main article. Thanks all, Christopher Parham (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think the specific issues brough up in the #Plea section would be a good place to start. Kevin Baastalk 17:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to sit back and see what happens here before I do anything. Perhaps someone will beat me to it and get rid of the Alternet links. Merecat 17:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection

message: Abuse of power section:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
Kevin Baastalk 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More for article 

message: Remember you deleted Katrina when it is used as  + Prometheuspan 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why does merecat keep deleting this over and over?