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

message: The purpose of this mirror is to use the mirror as reference so that
arguments regarding the article can be shown in direct relevance to
where they are in the article. For instance, merecats now archived by me
and retrieved out of archival ad hominem attacks and straw man attacks
for most of a page really only come down to a single reference or two.
In the mirror, Merecat could be helpful by simply putting an interuption in the mirror at the reference in question and writing something to the effect of "I object to this reference being cited due to the inherant
bias of the site." or ETC. That way, instead of obstructionist noise,
we could actually work on the article. Objections and problems could be duly noted, and in some cases, duly ignored. This is a much saner way of going about working on the article than pandering to Obstructionist
nitpicking and a zillion straw men and ad hominem digressions.
Prometheuspan 18:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories." "Biological laboratories" 	 
*Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War By Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, April 12, 2006 	 
Activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, both by withholding information which he ought to have communicated, and by supplying information, in his States of the Union speeches, that he should have known to be incorrect. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath. 	 
John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- asserts that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.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 	 
	 
------------- 	 
Prometheuspan 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: i'm a little confused. IMHO this article should not try to claim what is or is not a "high crime or misdemeanor", which would be original research AFAIK. It can only cite what external, reasonably notable people or organisations claim is an action by Bush that should qualify as a "high crime or misdemeanour" for impeachment purposes. Do we agree here or not? It's not totally clear to me if we agree, but maybe it's just me who is confused... Concretely on the NSA case: i don't see "legal scholar[s] admit[ting] that charge is going nowhere" as being a way to cite people/organisations who claim that Bush legally did the unwarranted NSA wiretaps. Charges "going nowhere" are not necessarily wrong. i'm sure there are plenty of charges of corruption which in reality are based on The Truth but in practice "go nowhere", and there are charges which are false but which "get a conviction". Anyway, if you have some citations of lawyers or organisations stating that Bush acted legally in this instance, then please add them. Boud 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not forget the overtly "biased" ABA and Specter, who also is convinced that spying without a warrant is illegal, and at this moment is irritated by the lack of cooperation/information provided by the administration. Nomen Nescio 00:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIRROR of ARTICLE 

message: Several individuals and organisations have alleged that President Bush has been guilty of transgressions that amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors." Some voices in the media and legal analysts have made a case for impeachment based on multiple allegedly impeachable offenses. The following discussion explains in more detail the arguments that are used. 	 
	 
===NSA warrantless surveillance controversy=== 	 
 	 
	 
In the context of the "war on terror", President Bush ordered wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy supposedly similar actions in the past (i.e. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it allegedly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures - this includes electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation.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 In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution (unitary executive theory), to bypass FISA.LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT U.S. Department of Justice, January 19, 2006 (See also: Separation of powers and rule of law.) 	
In January 2006, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released two legal analyses concluding that "...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law."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 On February 13, 2006, the American Bar Association issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis observes that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law.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 Also five former FISA judges voiced their doubts as to the legallity of the program. 	 
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 	 
--------------- 	 
I would add that this is exactly one of the things that got Nixon impeached.Further, I think that the actual events as they transpired 	 
makes an interesting narrative, and the case hardly digs as deep 	 
as we could dig. The case against the wiretapping has been getting 	 
deeper and larger in leaps and bounds. 	 
	 
Prometheuspan 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories." "Biological laboratories" 	 
*Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War By Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, April 12, 2006 	 
Activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, both by withholding information which he ought to have communicated, and by supplying information, in his States of the Union speeches, that he should have known to be incorrect. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath. 	 
John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- asserts that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.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 	 
	 
------------- 	 
Prometheuspan 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested reasons to impeach

message: In the context of the "war on terror", President Bush ordered wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy supposedly similar actions in the past (i.e. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it allegedly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures - this includes electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation.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 In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution (unitary executive theory), to bypass FISA.LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT U.S. Department of Justice, January 19, 2006 (See also: Separation of powers and rule of law.) 	
In January 2006, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released two legal analyses concluding that "...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law."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 On February 13, 2006, the American Bar Association issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis observes that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law.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 Also five former FISA judges voiced their doubts as to the legallity of the program. 	 
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 	 
--------------- 	 
I would add that this is exactly one of the things that got Nixon impeached.Further, I think that the actual events as they transpired 	 
makes an interesting narrative, and the case hardly digs as deep 	 
as we could dig. The case against the wiretapping has been getting 	 
deeper and larger in leaps and bounds. 	 
	 
Prometheuspan 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

message: ==== Consitutionality of Invasion ==== 	 
 	 
The case put forward by John Bonifaz in the book Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush is the same as the grounds for his John Doe I v. President Bush lawsuit; namely, that Bush invaded Iraq without a clear Congressional declaration of war. The argument is that the Congressional resolution to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq was unconstitutional because it "confers discretion upon the President to wage war", contrary to the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.Constitutional challenge to invasion of Iraq 	 
* John Doe I v. President Bush 	 
----------- 	 
I find this to be a weak argument, perhaps the weakest. The way I remember the factual history, Bush did ask for and did get congresional aproval to go to war. Whether or not the exact beurocratic legal methodology was followed seems a nitpickers 	 
question to me, esp when see in the light of the other much more 	 
hard hitting impeachment rationales. 	 
Prometheuspan 03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories." "Biological laboratories" 	 
*Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War By Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, April 12, 2006 	 
Activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, both by withholding information which he ought to have communicated, and by supplying information, in his States of the Union speeches, that he should have known to be incorrect. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath. 	 
John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- asserts that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.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 	 
	 
------------- 	 
Prometheuspan 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Invasion of Iraq

message: The case put forward by John Bonifaz in the book Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush is the same as the grounds for his John Doe I v. President Bush lawsuit; namely, that Bush invaded Iraq without a clear Congressional declaration of war. The argument is that the Congressional resolution to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq was unconstitutional because it "confers discretion upon the President to wage war", contrary to the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.Constitutional challenge to invasion of Iraq 	 
* John Doe I v. President Bush 	 
----------- 	 
I find this to be a weak argument, perhaps the weakest. The way I remember the factual history, Bush did ask for and did get congresional aproval to go to war. Whether or not the exact beurocratic legal methodology was followed seems a nitpickers 	 
question to me, esp when see in the light of the other much more 	 
hard hitting impeachment rationales. 	 
Prometheuspan 03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consitutionality of Invasion 

message: Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq — the possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be false, according to all official reports.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  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 . The Bush administration advocated that this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed,Blowing Cheney's Cover Ray McGovern, April 10, 2006 which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. Until today, an in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies has been frustrated. Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.Selectively disseminating information 	 
*Why 'leaker in chief' charge harms the president By Linda Feldmann, The Christian Science Monitor, April 10, 2006Misrepresenting 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  The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation. 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 	 
 Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. 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 A report by the Washington Post on April 12, 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite evidence to the contrary. 	 
:"The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories." "Biological laboratories" 	 
*Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War By Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, April 12, 2006 	 
Activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, both by withholding information which he ought to have communicated, and by supplying information, in his States of the Union speeches, that he should have known to be incorrect. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath. 	 
John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- asserts that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.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 	 
	 
------------- 	 
Prometheuspan 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification for Invasion 

message: Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration advocated that suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members would be designated as unlawful combatants. They suggested that, as such, they were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. To address the mandatory review by a "competent tribunal" as defined by article five of the Third Geneva Convention, Combatant Status Review Tribunals were established. The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations and Joanne Mariner from FindLaw have dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law.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  	 
Representative John Conyers has advocated investigating the abuses to see if they violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while Francis A. Boyle and Veterans For Peace hold that impeachment proceedings should be started.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 	 
 	 
------------- 	 
This is grounds for impeachment if we can show that Bush ordered 	 
the torture, which we pretty much can. More importantly we can show that he defended the torture, and that it continue thanks to his intervention on its behalf. Given the treaties we have signed, this makes us a criminal nation, thanks to the Bush Admin. 
It should also be noted that the quality of information obtained by torture has been categorically useless, and that in general the persons
who have been tortured by the USA haven't in general even had the information we were seeking.
	 
	 
For defense? Again, it basically comes down to idealism versus 	 
pragmatism. Should we save lives by means of torture? 	 
I find the idea reprehensible. But still, theres the defense in a nutshell. 	 
Prometheuspan 03:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geneva Conventions controversy

message: again, merecat deletes things without discussion and without due cause.
this is recovered from the articles history.
Prometheuspan 01:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more stuff deleted without propper cause or discussion by merecat 

message: this time, merecat deletes the start of the defense echo. Could it be that 
merecat wants to make the article look even more biased than it was?
hhmmmm
could be.
Prometheuspan 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more deleted fby merecat 

message: i have noticed a new batch of people in here cleaning things up,
and i wanted to express my apreciation.
The largest problem has been the fact of a very small closed loop of people. Fresh energy is def what was needed. If all of the noise generated causes that, it will have at least that much good in it.
Prometheuspan 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  thanks fer new energy 

message: The Constitution (Article II, Section 4) reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
To improve the article, each allegation against the president should begin by reciting the alleged criminal act by the president and by providing the state or federal statute or Constitutional provision that was broken.  Following this introduction, evidence (both damning and exculpatory) should be provided, along with comments by legal scholars on interpretation of the law. 
After a cursory read of the article, I saw no evidence the president was alleged to have committed treason or bribery so all other charges must fall under "other high crimes and misdemeanors."   Be careful each allegation meets that criteria.  For example, the section of NSA wiretapping is full of weasel words.  Not only is it not clear a law was broken, it is very clear the president has taken all the necessary to seek out legal approval from White House Counsel and Attorney General prior to the action and that he informed Congress of his actions.  While some may argue against the president's claim to have inherent constitutional authority to request NSA wiretaps, nearly every legal scholar (except only very few rabid partisan Democrats) admits that charge is going nowhere.  If there is evidence the president has broken a law - let's see the evidence.  Otherwise, this article appears to more impeachment cheerleading rather than informative. 14:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm a little confused. IMHO this article should not try to claim what is or is not a "high crime or misdemeanor", which would be original research AFAIK. It can only cite what external, reasonably notable people or organisations claim is an action by Bush that should qualify as a "high crime or misdemeanour" for impeachment purposes. Do we agree here or not? It's not totally clear to me if we agree, but maybe it's just me who is confused... Concretely on the NSA case: i don't see "legal scholar[s] admit[ting] that charge is going nowhere" as being a way to cite people/organisations who claim that Bush legally did the unwarranted NSA wiretaps. Charges "going nowhere" are not necessarily wrong. i'm sure there are plenty of charges of corruption which in reality are based on The Truth but in practice "go nowhere", and there are charges which are false but which "get a conviction". Anyway, if you have some citations of lawyers or organisations stating that Bush acted legally in this instance, then please add them. Boud 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not forget the overtly "biased" ABA and Specter, who also is convinced that spying without a warrant is illegal, and at this moment is irritated by the lack of cooperation/information provided by the administration. Nomen Nescio 00:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to improve this article