Talk:Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002/Archive 1

Transfer of Power Between Branches of Government
'''This section involves two separate issues which have been tangled together in these comments. Only one of the issues is relevant to the current article, Iraq Resolution.''' from Aaron McDaid: "* How much fighting can the President do around the world without a good old fashioned formal declaration of war?" - This is clearly relevant to the Iraq Resolution "* Under what circumstances, does the US have the right to suspend habeus corpus for US citizens within the US, and other controversial things?" - While this is an important topic, it should be discussed in the relevant articles, such as Patriot Act or War on Terrorism. Please move the discussion of these important issues to the relevant articles that touch on those issues. VisitorTalk 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

–Powers cannot be transfered between branches of government without a constitutional ammendment. (separation of powers) There was no constitutional ammendment, therefore power was not transfered between branches of government. This resolution pretended to authorize the transfer of power between branches of government (specifically, the power to declare war, from the legislative to executive branch), but did not ammend the constitution. Resolutions that authorize acts that the constitution prohibits are ipso facto unconstitutional and ipso facto invalid. Therefore, this resolution is unconstitutional. This is an important fact, and should be mentioned in the article.

Furthermore, since the resolution was thus invalid, power to declare war was never legally transfered to the president, and thus, technically speaking, war was never declared (at least not under the authority of the United States)! Kevin Baas 20:46, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Only US Courts are entitiled to declare US laws unconstitutional. Until now, no one has chanllenged this law before any US courts, therefore this law remains valid until declared unconstitutional by courts.


 * That's not the way rule of law works. Kevin Baastalk: new 16:41, 2005 May 10 (UTC)


 * That is the way the process of law works. Besides, this joint resolution doesn't "transfer powers" in that sense.  It merely authorizes the administration as required by the War Powers Resolution. -- Randy2063 02:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There are two separate questions:
 * How much fighting can the President do around the world without a good old fashioned formal declaration of war?
 * Under what circumstances, does the US have the right to suspend habeus corpus for US citizens within the US, and other controversial things?
 * My thinking, and I'm certainly no expert, is that:
 * There is no formal declaration of war in effect. Congress can't delegate war-declaration powers even if it wanted to. Congress doesn't authorize wars, the Constitution does. The Constitution only authorizes war if Congress makes a formal declaration of war. The War Powers Act explicitly refers to the President trying to obtaining a formal declaration of war at some point after the start of hostilities, (among other possibilities), in certain situations. Therefore, even the War Powers Act clearly announces that it doesn't pretend to try to 'delegate' war-declaring powers to anybody. The President may well be able to use force, but he can't call it 'war', at least not in the sense used in the Constitution.


 * (Apologies, this isn't quite relevant to this article) The right to suspend habeus corpus discussed in Article 1, section 9, only applies in case of rebellion or invasion. I don't see how such an Article is relevant now, unless you count Sep 11 as an 'invasion'. But even then, it could be argued that the invasion is now over. Or even that 'invade' in the sense of invade relevant to this Article only applies to sovereign states invading each other. Anyway, wiretaps seem illegal to me.


 * I'm not aware of there being any specific rights granted in the Constitution by the existence of a declaration of war (such as a right to suspend habeus corpus). In a sense, it may just be a useless formality, at least in terms of domestic US laws. But see the next point...


 * Therefore, the only question remaining is whether or not the Iraq hostilities are effectively warlike and require a formal declaration of war.


 * And another point, surely if the Supreme Court strikes down a law it's saying that it was never valid. Which is more serious than just saying that it is no longer valid. i.e. If the Supremes rule that the Iraq hostilities were a war and required a formal declaration, then the President has been in breach of the Constitution for the last few years. But anyway, the War Powers Act doesn't even purport to delegate war-declaring powers, so it may not even be relevant. Why should Congress authorize non-war force when the President already had that power anyway?


 * I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not even an American, but I have to laugh at many Americans, who cannot separate the discussion over whether something is legal from the discussion of whether you like it. Next thing you'll be saying that rain in unconstitutional, just because you don't like it. Aaron McDaid 12:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The First Circuit Court of Appeals already ruled stating "...the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." it went on to state "The court found that other actions by Congress, such as continued appropriations to fund the war ... provided enough indication of congressional approval." A "declaration of war" is not necessary to fulfill the requirements of the constitution in the eyes of the court, as the constitution "envisages the joint participation of the Congress and the executive in determining the scale and duration of hostilities." and that is what HJ Res 114 goes onto accomplish.

Furthermore they stated: "The Supreme Court recently and forcefully reiterated that, notwithstanding the Constitution's vesting of "all legislative power" in Congress, enactments which leave discretion to the executive branch are permissible as long as they offer some "intelligible principle" to guide that discretion." So you see the courts have ruled and further upheld the ruling that there is no illegal transfer of power and that HJ Res 114 accomplishes for all purposes what a "declaration of war" accomplishes "a join participation of congress and the executive". --Zer0faults 20:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the October Resolution on the grounds that a "declaration of war" accomplishes "a join participation of congress and the executive" is fallacious on its merits. The Constitution has no mention of "joint participation" when commiting American Forces to attack another country. Article 1, Section 8 clearly assigns the power to declare war to Congress and Congress alone!

The participation between Congress and the President in the declaration and conduct of war is rather simple: Congress declares war and the President conducts the war as Commander in Chief.

This "intelligible principle" is quite understandable in the context of "American" thought during the Constitutional Congress of 1787.

The American Revolution was a rejection of Monarchy and any notion that one man or small group of men could take the nation to war, undeniably the most grave responsibility of any Government.

The Founders were quite clear that only a body of legislators and exhaustive debate, if necessary, should commit an entire nation to war. The awesome power to go to war was bestowed upon Congress...the balance of powers doctrine then transfered the authority over the United States Armed Forces to the President in time of war.

It is not a coincidence that since the last declaration(s) of war which brought the United States into World War II, each military conflict including and since the Korean "Conflict' has resulted in failure. It is likely that had the Constitutional power to declare war by Congress been adhered to, thus restraining the power of the President to engage the United States Armed forces against another sovereign nation, the United States would have avoided both an unnecessary war and the failure that resulted.

So is the case with George Bush's War in Iraq.

One thing we learn from history is that we seldom learn from history and, therefore, are doomed to relive the consequences.

Resolution question
I've found a source (below) which claims a 'resolution' isn't really a law, its more of a congressional 'poll'. Can any legal scholars shed some light on whether a resolution is really a law?

http://www.truthaboutwar.org/claim3.shtml

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.192.46 (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on Running Parenthetical Commentary in Outline of Factors used to Justify Authorization of Force
In general I think that over use of parenthetical remarks is bad style. They also present information (or in this case, mostly opinions) with little room for additional information, references, or counter-arguments unless one is willing to seriously clutter up the presentation by making paragraph-length parenthetical comments. More seriously, these particular comments also present a serious case of non-neutral POV. Let's go through them:

1) Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. (Despite this statement, and subsequent comments by the Bush administration, at the time weapon inspectors were given access to the alleged weapon factories and it was the invasion of Iraq by the US that forced them out.)


 * Clearly it does not follow logically that the allowance of the entry of UN weapons inspectors implies compliance with the 1991 cease fire condition or non-interference with weapons inspections - one need only look at the Wikipage on the Iraq disarmament crisis timeline to see the truth of this. The statement of this fact (i.e. the U.S. request that UN inspectors to leave Iraq on the eve of the invasion), without discussing more directly relevant issues of continuing non-compliance of the 1991 cease fire (e.g. a full accounting of Iraq chemical and biological stockpiles and their disposal) and interference with UN disarmament efforts (which were still occurring according to Hans Blix at least until several weeks before the beginning of the invasion) seems like a clear attempt to assert a particular POV.

2) Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." (A statement we now know was not supported by the available evidence.)


 * Whether or not the evidence available at that time supported this point is a matter of opinion. To assert otherwise is clearly a violation of NPOV. There may be evidence to support this contention (i.e. that evidence at that time was not sufficient), but clearly there is also evidence to support the opposite as well (e.g. see George Tenet's new book "At the Eye of the Storm" [ http://www.amazon.com/At-Center-Storm-Years-CIA/dp/0061147788/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-1011960-3548749?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181002542&sr=8-1 ] and .) NPOV policy states that the article should not promote one view over the other. Arguments from both sides should be given and the reader should be left to decide for themselves. To make the claim that "We know now..." is a obvious violation of NPOV.


 * See also . Quote from George Tenet: "We provided the best intelligence we knew we had at the time... We didn't make it up. We didn't distort it. We didn't cook the books to help make the case for war. We believed (Iraq) had weapons of mass destruction. We were wrong on that. People believe that we sat back, knew what was gonna go wrong, and didn't tell anybody. Nobody had any wisdom at that point." And also: "We'd been following Iraq and its weapons programs for over 10 years. We told the Clinton administration just about the same thing we told the Bush administration … but, look: This is about human beings making judgments. We had an enormous amount of technical data. It got less and less ... We didn't have enough access on the ground. We stated our beliefs and our judgments. We told people we had high confidence in our judgments. Harry, men and women who followed programs for years honestly said what we believed. We turned out to be wrong. We were not disingenuous. And we certainly didn't want to mislead people."


 * Clearly some people (George Tenet among them) feel that the evidence available at that time did support the assertion that Iraq had WMDs. The claim that "we know now" that this was not the case is not only factually incorrect but also a violation of the NPOV policy.

3) Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." (Whether this is a casus belli is debatable with the laws of war in mind.)


 * A rather useless comment since international law is often debatable. I doubt the reader needs to be reminded of this. Clearly this is just a device to promote a particular POV in the article.

4) Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people" (We now know that the available evidence at the time showed there probably were no WMD's in Iraq.)


 * Whether evidence at the time supported this point is clearly a matter of opinion. There are arguments on both sides (again see George Tenet's book.) Up until the time of the invasion and before that, during the Clinton administration as well, many U.S. politicians expressed grave concern regarding Iraq's WMDs. Again, use of "we now know" is clear attempt to assert one position over the other without letting the reader decide. Violation of NPOV. FWIW I also recall reading that John Edwards asked Clinton administration officials whether or not what the Bush admin was saying regarding Iraq and WMDs was consistent with what was known during the Clinton admin. The response he got was that these were exactly the same issues regarding Iraq WMDs that they were aware of.

5) Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq." (A statement we now know was not supported by the available evidence.)


 * Clearly there are differing opinions on this matter: "we now know" is a violation of NPOV. For example, from George Tenet's 2007 book: "What was even more worrisome was that by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They had found a comfortable and secure environment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi's operations in northeastern Iraq."


 * Also, another quote from Tenet's book: "The intelligence told us that senior al-Qa'ida leaders and the Iraqis had discussed safe haven in Iraq. Most of the public discussion thus far has focused on Zarqawi's arrival in Baghdad under an assumed name in May of 2002, allegedly to receive medical treatment. Zarqawi, whom we termed a "senior associate and collaborator" of al-Qa'ida at the time, supervised camps in northern Iraq run by Ansar al-Islam (AI). We believed that up to two hundred al-Qa'ida fighters began to relocate there in camps after the Afghan campaign began in the fall of 2001. The camps enhanced Zarqawi's reach beyond the Middle East. One of the camps run by AI, known as Kurmal, engaged in production and training in the use of low-level poisons such as cyanide. We had intelligence telling us that Zarqawi's men had tested these poisons on animals and, in at least one case, on one of their own associates. They laughed about how well it worked. Our efforts to track activities emanating from Kurmal resulted in the arrest of nearly one hundred Zarqawi operatives in Western Europe planning to use poisons in operations."


 * Some may think the evidence was weak, or today we may say that it was largely wrong. But the contention that "we know now" that this point "was not supported by the available data" at the time is just particular contributor's opinion. And the use of "we know now" is a not-so-subtle attempt on the part of this contributor to elevate his opinion to that of fact - a clear violoation of NPOV policy.

6) Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. (A statement we now know was not supported by the available evidence.)


 * Wanted terrorist Abu Nidal was living openly in Bagdhad in a villa own by the Iraqi intelligence until August 2002. Saddam Hussein paid money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers - two clear examples of aiding and harboring international terrorists. Thus this statement is factually incorrect and also non-neutral due to use of "we now know..." Also see George Tenet's book for another view concerning evidence available at that time - quote: "More al-Qa'ida operatives would follow, including Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, two Egyptians assessed by a senior al-Qa'ida detainee to be among the Egyptian Islamic Jihad's best operational planners, who arrived by mid-May of 2002. At times we lost track of them, though their associates continued to operate in Baghdad as of October 2002. Their activity in sending recruits to train in Zarqawi's camps was compelling enough."


 * Note also this quote from a Washington Post article : "Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." Now, even though it discounts the intelligence on cooperation between al-Qaeda and Iraq, it also affirms that Iraq did indeed have long-term relationships with "other terrorists groups. This is entirely consistent with the point of Iraq "continuing to aid and harbor ***other*** (presumambly non-al Qaeda) international terroist organizations."

7) The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them. (We know that the available evidence showed no "working relationship" between Iraq and the people behind 9/11)


 * See George Tenet's book for another view of evidence available at that time. I quote: "There was more than enough evidence to give us real concern about Iraq and al-Qa'ida; there was plenty of smoke, maybe even some fire: Ansar al-Islam; Zarqawi; Kurmal; the arrests in Europe; the murder of American USAID officer Lawrence Foley, in Amman, at the hands of Zarqawi's associates; and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad operatives in Baghdad." Clearly, there are other views on this matter which are not presented. The use of "We know..." indicates preference for one POV over another which is a violation.

8) Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. (Under international law, this is not a valid casus belli, and as such attacking Iraq would constitute a war of aggression.)


 * Well, this is just illogical since the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was not the only factor used to justify use of force. Clearly the setting up of this hypothetical scenario is just a straw man used to promote a particular POV. I have fixed the faulty logic in this particular comment and made it point of view neutral. Hopefully, this example will help the contributor to see how he may fix his other errors and violations of NPOV policy.


 * Well, apparently the contributor reverted back to his older version of this particular parenthetical remark. The remark contains a false or at least logically irrelevant implication (depending on whether or not you are in agreement with the conclusion.) Since this adds nothing to the presentation, I suspect this is once again simply a device for promoting his own POV. Whatever. He has an agenda to promote but seems incapable of seeing that he is actually hurting his position by introducing an obvious non-neutral POV into the article. I am beginning to suspect he may be a GOP plant sent here by Karl Rove. ;-)

In any case, I am including the NPOV and Disupte tags on the top of the page for the reasons outlined above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.135.126 (talk • contribs)

Removed the tags since the statements are sourced in the criticism paragraph. This sufficiently addresses the points raised. Thank you. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 08:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ad 1 The contention inspectors were not allowed is a falsehoood. Whether they had unrestricted access is another matter and certainly not a casus belli under the laws of war, i.e. the US circumvented the UN and as such is guilty of a war of aggression unless SH attacked the US.
 * ad 2 Most, if not all intelligence agencies in the world doubted this. Clearly if there is serious doubt it cannot be asserted as a casus belli. Also the fact we have still not found these magical WMD's seems to prove the calim was an inflated smokescreen.
 * ad 3 Debatable is a diplomatic way of saying it is illegal. See war of aggression and jus ad bellum.
 * ad 4 Again there were grave doubts making such a statement unsupported by the facts.
 * ad 5 Not a casus belli, especially since SH had nothing to do with it and it happened all outside of his control. The same logic means Bush is responsible since 19 members of AQ were present in the US on 9-11. So, not accurate and misrepresents the actual events.
 * ad 6 If every cent or cup of coffee by underlings constitutes "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," we soon can invade half the world. Heck the IRA had major sponsors in the US, who wined and dined them, and would not have survived without it. To claim that is a casus belli is not compatable with international law or even the laws of logic.
 * ad 7 See criticism section for the latest (report in 2007) on this. There was no working releationship between AQ and SH.

I put the tags back up....the "We now know" is clearly POV....even a blind man could tell that.

The "we now Know stuff might belong in the criticism area but not as a listing oif what the Bill said....its confusing and not 100% true. It also shouldnt be edited by someone who thinks this"This user believes that George W. Bush's edits to the constitution and his attempts to abolish the rule of law need to be reverted." Clearly Nescio is unable to be NPOV on this subject and I will re-do any of his POV edits.I also added "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality." because it is and must be. and since this was written "Removed the tags since the statements are sourced in the criticism paragraph." he must know the "we now know" belongs in the criticim paragraph and not where it is. GATXER 12:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems Bush has to be defended at all times. even it it results in claiming that a factual article is POV. in light of the above it is factual and NPOV to state that we now know allegations of WMD's and a working relationship with AQ were not supported by the available evidence at the time. Clearly you are making a point but the argument is unwarranted, incorrect is only supported by a increasingly small group of people residing in the White House. Since the edit war is becoming tedious I let you alter history and leave the tags that should have been removed. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) SH and AQ were not working together. See sources.
 * 2) SH did not have WMD's. See sources.
 * 3) The available evidence, and I mean all of it not the limited amount supporting Bushco, did not support the solid case that was made regarding point 1 and 2.
 * 4) Only now do we know the evidence was not a smoking gun. At the time we were not told that.

After IM with a Wiki-Admin.......I've decided that the "We now Know" is clearly POV and I'm removing it.Please fill free to add it to the Large Criticism area where it belongs.

However it would be better to add to the See also at the top of the page.

See also: Rationale for the Iraq War, Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Authorization for Use of Military Force, and Category:Stances and opinions regarding the 2003 Iraq conflict

With the running commentary it is near impossible to get just what the bill says.GATXER 12:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to debate the subject here. Any discussion I am not party to and am unable to read I feel not obliged to acknowledge. I restored the comments as explained above. If you are unable to understand the difference in style is to indicate comment and not the actual language it is a pity. But other editors will surely understand. Thank you for discussing your edits. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is really nothing to discuss...."We now Know" is clearly POV and anyone not brain damaged would know that. It can and will not be allowed to stay in the bill part....feel free to add what ever to the Criticism part....where it belongs.GATXER 00:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * GATXER, please cool it with the ad hominem attacks. The physiology of visual acuity or neuronal function of another Wikipedia editor is not relevant to whether that editor's edits improve the article, and I doubt that you are presenting the verifiable results of a notable medical exam of your fellow editor.  "Blind" and "brain damaged" are not appropriate epithets to demonstrate an assumption of good faith.  Your comments about how to improve the article may well be valuable.  If they are, they can stand or fall on their own merits, not on the allegation of biological dysfunctions on the part of those who disagree.  As you cited the Wikipedia policy on point of view, you'd agree that WP:AGF is equally valuable, wouldn't you? VisitorTalk 06:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nescio, I believe that GAXTER has a valid point. The portion of the article that reports on the text of the resolution should only report on the text of the resolution.  The portion of the article that reports on criticism of the resolution should only report on the criticism of the resolution.  In order to understand the criticism, the contents that are criticized must first be presented.  The criticism was not part of what Congress voted on in its resolution, therefore it is inappropriate to put the criticism inline with the summary.  In addition, each item of criticism must be supported by relevant citations.  Even if it seems obvious to you that there is an inescapable conclusion to be drawn - and even if you're right about that - as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia cannot cite you as an authority but must refer to notable published sources.  If you are a notable published source, you should say so and give the relevant bibliographic citations, but then withdraw from a discussion in which you'd have a conflict of interest. VisitorTalk 06:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I observe you have just
 * stated your unwillingness to discuss and resolve any dispute,
 * announced you will edit war as an alternative to dispute resoltion,
 * violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.


 * May I thank you for enlightning me and thereby telling me to stop taking you serious. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have a POV....it doesnt belong in the bill part. This has been stated to you by at least 2 people and NO ONE has taken your side. I have no problem with you adding it to the Criticism part WHERE IT BELONGS!

Maybe you missed it but this page is ABOUT THE BILL and what it says....there are many other pages where the "We now know" stuff might go....but I doubt it would be welcomed by many Admins.

Your are right....I will not allow you to hurt this page with POV.....this page is to important...BTW: I agree with most of what you have typed.....but it is POV and doesnt belong. Im not A bush lover I voted for Gore and Nader.GATXER 07:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right, I have a POV, it is called "presenting all the facts so readers can make up their own mind." You may have noticed your POV which is "delete all facts that are uncomfortable to the Bush administration since it amounts to criticism and any criticism of the US government ipso facto should be withheld from readers should they become confused and start doubting the Fuhr, err, Great Leader." Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nescio, you most certainly have not presented all the facts. You have only presented one side - both in your parenthetical comments and in the criticism section. And the presentation of the "facts" by means of your parenthetical comments makes it very difficult to include opposing views in the same space (and thus with equal treatment) without further compromising the readibility of the article. As far as your claim that GATXER "deletes all facts that are uncomfortable to the Bush administration," this is obviously false since he has left your comments in the criticism section untouched. The running commentary should be removed, as it is not possible to leave it there and still allow equal treatment of opposing views while still retaining the readability of that section of the article. You should realize that your edits (in particular the parenthetical comments) are seriously detracting from the legitimacy of the article, thus working to defeat your rather obvious agenda.
 * Of course you are right there is insufficient space for a nuanced comment. What you fail to understand is that there is no nuance.
 * AQ and SH did not work together.
 * Iraq was not involved in 9-11.
 * SH did not possess WMD's
 * Those are the facts, we might not like it. Heck, we may even find conspiracy theorists disputing it. But as the sources show, every investigation to date has corroborated these points. Therefore we can make a simple statement. Then there is the comment on whether this resolution and the myriad media reports from the WH was in accordance with the intelligence reports. Again, subsequent investigations, see sources, established that taken together the available evidence was insufficent to warrant the "smoking gun" rhetoric. So, with that in mind adding a comment reflecting the fact the statements were unsupported by the evidence is again correct and factual. Please tell me exactly what part of the above you think is not true. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute outright any of those three points. I dispute the manner in which you present that information. For example, you make the parenthetical remark "The available evidence showed no "working relationship" between Iraq and the people behind 9/11" next to the factor which states "The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them." Now, it is true that the 9/11 commission report states that there is no evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship." But it also states that there is evidence that the Iraqi government offered OBL safe haven in the late 90's, and that the Iraq government aided the Ansar al Islam - an al-Qaeda affiliate group. An argument could be made that both of these things could be viewed as "aid" to the group behind 9/11. The report also discusses "friendly contacts" between the Iraqi government and various sorts of cooperation. These are the sorts of things that would need to be discussed to give a full picture and an objective analysis. Let me try to make it more clear to you: what if I was to remove your statement which says "no working relationship between Saddam Hussien and the al Qaeda" and replace it with "Evidence indicates Saddam Hussein offered Osama bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq 1999?" Do you think that would paint a fair picture of the situation? Another example of your bias is the parenthetical comment following the first factor. While is it true that the U.S. lead invasion of Iraq forced the termination of the inspections, it is also true that Saddam had been in violation of the cease fire agreements for 12 years and only started to show cooperation with U.N. inspectors after a massive build-up of U.S. forces in the region. Even up until a few weeks before the invasion, Han's Blix stated that Iraq was not fully cooperating with the inspection process and had apparently not yet made a fundamental decision to disarm. Again, this is information that needs to be included in order to give a full treatment of the relevant facts. Your use of parenthetical comments is wholly unsuited for such a treatment (which I suspect is your intention.) In any case, these are just two examples of the sort of thing you do repeatedly throughout your commentary. As it stands, few will take the article seriously, and even strong critics of the Bush administration will likely be dismayed by its ham-fisted lack of balance.

(indent) Thanks for your comment but my interpretation of events is more strict. Respectfully Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 08:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Also, the reader is better served if we concentrate statements and their rebuttal at the same location. Otherwise people might miss what actually6 happened to the SH was involved in 9-11 links . Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Was SH involved in 9/11, or even working with AQ? You yourself admit he was not. Of course we can speculate that by having some incidental contact with a remote affiliate of the neighbour of the sister of ... But by that logic even the US itself is supporting AQ, see details on who they are funding in Iraq. aside from OR it does not negate the fact that official reports c oncluded there was no active relationship. To suggest there was is rewriting history.
 * 2) Regarding "friendly contacts" I remember a certain high level US person having a nice cup of coffee with SH. For some reason we ignore the fact that that person, although he had a good time, now suddenly asserts SH is the greatest threat to mankind. Sounds like a contradictio in terminis.
 * 3) As to any contact in 1999, or 1864 for that matter, I would only object because it is irrelevant. To claim something from 4 years before is a valid casus belli defies logic and violates international law.
 * 4) By your own explanation the weapon inspector thingy was moot. The fact they were present and actively working in Iraq makes a resoltions that is a decade old moot. Further, one could argue whether such a resoltion could be referred to indefinitely. Ten years, twenty years, fifty years? How many years can a country be bound by it?


 * If you are using your "(strict) interpretation of the events" to decide which facts to present, or which facts to emphasize over others (e.g. see the running parenthetical commentary throughout the list of factors) in the article, then you should make that clear in the article, i.e. you should plainly state that "the presentation of the facts in this article is based on Nescio's strict interpretation." Otherwise, all relevant facts should be presented and the reader should be allowed to interpret them as they will (regardless of whether or not that accords with your own personal interpretation.) Your opinion that the alleged offer of safe haven to OBL on the part of the Iraqi government is irrelevant, is exactly that - your opinion; let the reader decide whether this is irrelevant or not. Moreover, if there is indeed some sort of statute of limitations of 4 years in international law, then you should provide a reference for that; that would be interesting. Finally, it is not up to you to decide whether or not the demands in the ceasefire agreement should be moot after 10 years or whatever period of time, that's a consideration to be determined by the parties to that agreement. You clearly have strong opinions on this subject, and perhaps some of your arguments have some weight, but what you are doing is assuming that the conclusion of your arguments is a forgone conclusion, and then skewing the presentation of the information to be in conformity with that conclusion. That is entirely inappropriate. That reader should be allowed to come to his or her own conclusion.

GAXTER
GAXTER, the comment under the U.N. may or may not be interesting (POV), but as it is it seems somewhat tangential to the rest of that section. I think it would be entirely appropriate however to highlight possible political motivations of some of the people mentioned in that section. To do so, you could probably look into how these same people (e.g. Conyers) reacted to the U.S.-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia during the Clinton administration (it was not approved by the U.N., nor was Yugoslavia a serious threat to the U.S. or its allies), or the two protracted bombing campaigns of Iraq that took place during the Clinton administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.135.3 (talk • contribs)

Yes Im aware that most of this page is POV....take the outside links.....all anti and some dont have anything to do with this page. Nescio cant understand that his POV edits belong in the Crit part. My guess is hes a Far left wing Moonbat who thinks hes right. Well hes not going to put his POV on this page.GATXER 12:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Next time, perhaps you could leave out the 'moonbat' description? Addhoc 15:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I see he has so much respect for Addhoc that he went ahead and changed the page again while its still Open. I dont know if I should change it back or not. Its clearly still POV with little facts to back it up.As for the moonbat description he meets the listed Winki description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbat I take it you intend to let him put what ever he wants on the page ...I guess Mediation was a complete waste of my time. GATXER 00:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Has any court ruled that : This is not a valid casus belli with the laws of war and prohibition of a war of aggression in mind.)

If not it is POV. And should be removed ASAP! The POV editor may think its true but if no court has said so.....it should be removed or changed to show that no court has agreed. GATXER 01:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion by Addhoc
Could I suggest the criticism which has been placed in the 'contents' section is merged into the 'criticism' section? Addhoc 09:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I would urge my fellow editor to resist his habit of violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA: I am not an "idiot" nor a "moonbat!" If not, there is no point in continuing. Second, it would be helpful if he could tell us whether the info itself is correct or incorrect. Then we could exchange arguments on its veracity. Third, why would the reader not be served if he could immediately see the statement and whether such a statement was valid? As it is now. Putting it in the criticism section makes it more cumbersome to relate a stement with its caveat. To then copy the stement and counter it is not improving the article. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You can.....which is what I and others have been saying from the start......and all I have asked for and edited out.Is it any wonder that hes in Mediation for atleast 4 pages that I know of....Oh and big shock....everyone is about Iraq or Bush. All are POV problems.

However the great Nescio will not listen to us. GATXER 10:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the information correct yes or no. Please answer that! Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No....its Your POV which not everyone agrees with! How many times must you be told that? They only way your edits could be NPOV is if EVERYONE agreed with you.....and this talk page proves thats not true. GATXER 10:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So, it is your position that:
 * SH was involved in 9-11?
 * SH did have WMD's?
 * Inspectors were not allowed in Iraq?
 * Are you certain of these points? You are awarer that even the Bush administration no longer holds that position and has officially stated they were wrong? Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This has all be explained to you above by other people. You have a closed mind and just don't get it. Frankly I'm tired of telling you why you are wrong....it was done much better above by others who see your POV crap......if you didn't get it then.....keeping in mind the Mediation YOU wanted also thinks it should be moved. You are clearly pushing you own POV....which is why you are in so many Mediation. The POV has been removed and will be re-removed when necessary....please put it in the criticism section which EVERYONE but YOU agrees is where it should be. GATXER 11:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I would ask the mediator to step in and mandate that Mr G stops reverting on sight so I can at least have the ability of adding sources without violating 3RR myself. Furhter his statement seems to imply he thinks SH did plan and execute 9-11 and that he did possess WMD's. It is evident he has no source for that blatantly false position. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 11:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could I suggest you attempt to find a workable compromise instead of continuing to edit the article? Addhoc 11:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was about to add sources to your compromise when the disruptive revert prevented me from doingf so. It is evident this editor objects to mediation as he again stated above where he reiterated his promise to revert on sight. As it stands his position is that the resolution accurately stated Iraq was behind 9-11 and had WMD's for another attack. As such he refuses to inform the reader that position is entirely incorrect and no evidence excists supporting it. As long as he keeps reverting and prevents me from even inserting sources I see no solution. His behaviour clearly opposes any compromise that would have him shift his position. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 11:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was about to add sources to your compromise when the disruptive revert prevented me from doingf so. It is evident this editor objects to mediation as he again stated above where he reiterated his promise to revert on sight. As it stands his position is that the resolution accurately stated Iraq was behind 9-11 and had WMD's for another attack. As such he refuses to inform the reader that position is entirely incorrect and no evidence excists supporting it. As long as he keeps reverting and prevents me from even inserting sources I see no solution. His behaviour clearly opposes any compromise that would have him shift his position. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 11:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The mediayor has suggested that we do what I have been doing.....READ it above! Addhocis the mediator YOU wanted Addhoc suggests we do what EVERYONE has been saying BUT YOU!

To Addhoc...we have tried but he wont listen....hes in need of a Mediator in at least 4 Bush pages.GATXER 11:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You bet I am. Anybody removing the fact that Bush invented WMD's and links to AQ deserves to be corrected. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 11:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again the bad editor has stated my opinion....and got it wrong as usual.......criticism BELONG in the criticism  section.....I have said it....the Mediator YOU wanted has said it and at least 3 other people have said it on the talk page. If you cant understand...One has to believe its you with the problem. I guess we will just have to correct the page on a daily thing until you "get It". It doesn't matter if the Criticism is true or false....it BELONGS IN THE CRITICISM SECTION!

I would like to know why on earth did you ask for mediation if you had no intention of doing what they said? GATXER 12:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I basically agree - this isn't about truth / falsehood, it's about taking the criticism, adding sources, rewriting from a neutral perspective and merging into the criticism section. Addhoc 12:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting copying the bulletlist with rebuttal to the criticism section? Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 13:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm suggesting extracting the rebuttals, rewriting them from a neutral perspective, and merging them into the criticism section. Addhoc 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that the "criticism" section be changed to an "analysis" section, to allow a more balanced discussion of the language in the resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.135.3 (talk • contribs)

How would you say NPOV-wise that no active link to AQ (that is, Iraq was not involved in 9-11) existed and no WMD's were present according to every investigation? You will find I added sources for the doubting Thomas. Second, if you think a rebuttal is out of place directly following a false statement I do not agree but clearly in the interest of compromise feel free to move it to the criticism section. However, removing it altogether as Mr G appears to want is uneacceptable. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 14:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism should be in the Criticism part. Which is all we have been trying to tell Mr. N. He cant understand that....so I guess we will just have to re-edit till he does. Everyone thinks hes wrong but like Bush....that doesnt matter......he wanted a mediator and when the mediatior said he was WRONG he again pulled a Bush and did it his way.....can we impech Mr. N?

I have no problem re-editting daily his POV edits to protect this page. GATXER 23:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't remember anybody saying Mr G is free to edit war and revert on sight, even if that means deleting the sources he asked for. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 09:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit War
I want to make clear, I don't want to be in a edit war. However I've never seen anything more clear then Mr. N edits that don't belong. I don't enjoy visiting the page 3 or 4 times a day. I welcomed bringing in a Mediator,However since the mediator agrees with everyone but Mr.N. He again made the same changes.

Could it be more clear that Criticism belongs in the Criticism section. The reasons should remain a list of just the reasons and the Criticism should not be there but in the Criticism part. The entire page is anti-Iraq war with little NPOV anyway.

It should be pointed out that Mr. N has had to bring in a mediator in 4 or 5 pages all Bush related. I believe his edits are now just vandalism. I plan to treat them as such.

Consensus has been reached and no one agrees with his edits....not even his own requested mediator.

Criticism should be in the Criticism section...why else even have a Criticism part at all? GATXER 01:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should stop your reverting on sight and make reasonable contributions. TYhe fact you deleted alot of sources I have entered and also ignore my attempt at rewriting the sentences, to adress your concerns, means you are not looking for a compromise but adhere to the adagium: my way or the highway. Also, keep pointing your finger while making unsupported allegations. That always helps win an argumnent. Shouting always trunps rational debate. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 09:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? We don't care how many sources you get. Criticism belongs in the Criticism section and not a running thing out lining the reason. As far as I'm concerned your edits are vandalism and will be treated as such.

Put your Criticism where it belongs and we will stop editing your vandalism out. GATXER 10:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you are the only edit warrior we must refer to pluralis majestatis. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking of the Mediator YOU requested and the other people on the talk page. I also include the people I have asked to help me with this page to keep the bad edits out.

You are just upset that you cant say we....since NO ONE agrees with you. GATXER 10:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge the running commentary into criticism. It is the only place it belongs. Arkon 16:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

POV
I put the POV tags back up. This page is about 90% POV. Take the Ref. 100% of them are anti-war or antiBush. I dont have the time to fix them, since some are so bad they should just be deleted. I think it important to warn people that not everyone see this page as fair and NPOV.

Also Editor N has shown his true colors by calling me "edit warrior". Of course that is clear WP:CIVIL...but as a grown up I wont complain to every board who would listen. GATXER 02:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact you apply "edit warrior" to yourself proves you see yourself as such, not that I do. I never named the "edit warrior." Further, the tag has been there, you did not fix it so apparently there are no problems. Tags are not meant to prove a point. I revert, don't insert them again without outlining the exact problems. It is impossible to address without knowing what it is you want changed. Be precise, not vague. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are 19 Ref on the page......Not most.....no some......but ALL are anti-war or anti-Bush.....if that doesnt show you its has some POV problems.....nothing will. Its not up to YOU to decided if there are problems....or me for that matter...I didnt put the Tag up in the first place....but its clear it MUST stay untill page is fixed. As for POV sorry but since you couldnt see "we now know" is POV I dont think I will take your advice on if anything POV or not. GATXER 04:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, because cherry-picking a phrase from the *title* of a *source* to disparage sure provides grounding in the validity of your argument. And neither does your painting of, say, the Christian Science Monitor as anti-Bush. AFAIK/CT, CSM has a reputation of being one the most non-biased, solid reporting agencies out there. I also don't see any "anti-shrubbery" content in the cited article. --Belg4mit 05:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Belg4mit.....thanks for looking but you clearly have no idea what I was talking about.....please read the other comments on this page and get caught up and comment again when you know what we are talking about....."we now know" was on this page many times which were removed over and over. I wasnt talking about the CSM story but what editor N has in the past thought was NPOV. I also said the Ref were anti-war or Bush.....I didnt say the souces all were. However many Ref are less than NPOV. The Salon.....Downing Street memo or the Huffington Report are not NPOV by and means.GATXER 07:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please assume a less belligerent attitiude when somebody takes the time to comment here. Second, I fail to see why you keep rehashing the past, especially since "we know now" is factually correct. At that time people pulled the wool over our eys but "we know now" with new reports and newspaperarticles that SH had no ties to AQ and no WMD which the Bush administration would have known had they listened to all intelligence agencies in the world. The CIA included. Third, if I understand you correctly your claim of POV rests on the use of perceived biased sources. Let's see what others think. This however, does not support the notion of the article being inaccurate. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 09:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Threading is good:

thanks for looking but you clearly have no idea what I was talking about, ....please read the other comments on this page and get caught up and comment again when you know what we are talking about
 * Then maybe you should express yourself better? I read everything in this section, expecting everything relevant to the discussion under the POV section header to be present, unless explicitly mentioned otherwise.

"we now know" was on this page many times which were removed over and over.
 * perhaps, but it's not now (nor has it been since this POV spat began on 2007-07-10), so it's irrelevant (whether or not it's "inflammatory"). You provided no specific context, and the only instance one can presently find is in an article title.

I also said the Ref were anti-war or Bush.....I didnt say the souces all were.
 * potato potahto, especially since one sentence later you are griping about the perceived "neutrality" of Salon, etc. Again, CSM itself is generally perceived as being as neutral as the Swiss, and the *article* (i.e; reference) used also seems quite even-handed to me. Are they all so acrhomatic? No. But that's not necessary nor even desirable. --Belg4mit 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's gotten a lot better. The POV is now limited to the "Criticism" section. It needs to be toned down a bit to better reflect the "hundreds" of UN violations cited in the Duelfer report.[ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 ] Isaac Pankonin 03:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Untalked about protection
One wonders what board Editor N used to get a page protected by someone who discussed nothing before page protected. A blind man could see this page is not 100% NPOV. Its been dicussed over and over on the talk page. Editor N seems to be on a edit war on many Bush pages. I would like the person who protected this page without even saying why explain why they thought it was a good idea? In any case it should be remarked and unprotected ASAP. GATXER 03:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact you suggest any involvement in this by me and the ad hominem seems to skirt WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. You have already been informed not to engage in such behaviour on this page and here. Second, any other person might see this as an opportunity to elaborate on why this article is factually incorrect and POV. Not being able to edit war is an incentive to start discussing your edits.:) So, take it away and explain what exactly you consider inaccurate? Respectfully. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Gaxter, in my humble opinion the protection was entirely appropriate, because there was a stale revert war. The article is rated start class, which implies the article has significant areas that require improvement. In this context, nobody is suggesting the article is 100% neutral. Could I suggest if you have concerns about the editing pattern of a user that it's more productive to file a request for comment - user conduct instead of discussing the issue on the article talk page? Lastly, I would suggest that you attempt to establish a genuine consensus regarding how this article could be improved. Addhoc 19:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I requested a third party admin to view the situation on this article and he decided to protect it. You've revert warred on this article for more than a month now without even trying to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. If such revert warring continues after this protection is removed you may expect to be temporarily blocked for unwillingness to abide by wikipedia policy.--Jersey Devil 20:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right....JerseyDevil who has never had anything to say on this talk page and never made any edits on this page that I can see requested protection. And even thought the Consensus was reached last week due to meditaion JerseyDevil used that as a reason? It should also be pointed out that I was on the side of Consenus on the so called revert war last month.

All I did was put the POV Warnning back up which shouldnt have been removed.

To Addhoc...of course that is what Editor N is saying.....again all I did was put back up the POV tag...NOTHING MORE.....to take it down and then protect the page is saying that this page is 100% NPOV.....anyone here think thats true? This game some editors seem to be playing is why Wnki gets a bad name. Admins who allow them to put POV on pages should feel shame.....anyone who calls Bush Der Furer should be blocked from editting Bush pages if not every page. GATXER 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One would think that after you were explained WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA you would try and become a productive and friendly contributor. The above seems to be a continuation of your less than community-friendly approach. Second, please review the page before you start complaining. At the top of it you will find a POV tag. To claim I removed it yet again proves you keep discussing events while not fully aware of the current status. I call that "shooting from the hip" tactics. Advise: first think, than discuss, not the other way around. Third, the tag that was removed was the one stating the article is factually incorrect. Since you fail to substantiate what sentence exactly it is you think is not based in fact people have asked you to do so. Your failure to elaborate your position, although it never stopped you from any reverting, is the reason that tag is removed. Fourth, what consensus did you see against including the information that much of this resolution was unsupported by the available evidence? Last, the page was protected so you are unable to continue edit warring and forces you to discuss. Again, what inaccuracies have you found in the artcile and how can we remedy that? Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 09:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say, as far as "facts" the Criticism section of this article is a disgrace to both the spirit and the letter of Wiki's charter. Nomen Nescio seems to have all his facts in order- at least as close as the status quo in forums like newshounds and DU will allow without banning dissenters from their ranks. In other words I'm assuming you made those claims with honest intent, though many are not supported by facts whatsoever. I'm especially talking about passages in the vein of "we know now (claims of WMD) were not supported by evidence at the time" a thinly veiled accusation of lying that itself is a lie. Marching out the few minority dissenters during the 2004 election campaign to repeat their small footnote in a 91 page report whose conclusive findings declared Saddam possessed WMD is hardly something to accuse a sitting President of lying for. Fact is not a single finished intelligence document that was available to lawmakers of either branch concluded Saddam had disarmed. That's what counts, the conclusive findings. Further amusement can be found with remarks like "the Downing St. Memo substantiated this" It's beyond POV. Most of your embellishments are as false as anything you've accused the government of. For now, consider this a simple "chime in" that your contribution to this article is light years to the left of objective, but if anti-social promotion of your political agenda is your goal I will not disrespect you by offering a half hearted effort at a point by point rebuttal. It will be brutally thorough using MSM links. Happy Wikiing. Batvette 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC) All the "rigid evidence" that should have been necessary for policymakers was the NIE furnished by DCI Tenet in October 2002. This document was prepared at the request of congress, and not the President, and its key judgements may be found here: http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html Its conclusions are quite assertive, not at all as you describe, and even the caveats within concerning the aluminum tubes still had those dissenting views with the disclaimer that without the tubes being a factor, they judged Saddam to be actively pursuing nuclear development. However I would not be so arrogant to think I will change your mind on any of this, and merely furnish that link for others to see that claim "the allegations could not be supported by the available evidence" to be drawn as a conclusion by any policymaker in Washington voting on the Joint Resolution, is not a claim made by someone with objectivity on this issue. They can read it for themselves, not your assurance of what you think it says.I might further note that your above claim "much of this resolution was unsupported by the available evidence" is rather bizarre, as the JR makes no claim of actual stockpiles in Iraq at the time of its drafting, nor claims of Iraq complicity in 9/11. In fact if you read it carefully, and word by word, you will have to concede it made no claim at all which later turned out false. Politicians are many things, but not stupid enough to put a lie in a historical document. Thank you for taking the time to reply, and considering my views. Batvette 09:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are trying to say. AFAIK every report concluded that at best the allegations could not be supported by the available evidence. To start a war based on claims that you are incapable to substantiate with rigid evidence is exactly what the Bush administration did. To claim they had no way of knowing otherwise is silly. The level of doubt voiced in those reports should have been a red flag to all that now claim "who could have known." Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 17:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Senator Bob Smith
I'm working on the Robert Smith disambiguation page, and I detected that there's a link that you should change. In this section of the article, you have to change the link of Robert Smith to Robert C. Smith. --PeterCantropus 16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Change made. Sr13 18:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

U.N. Charter
I won't argue about whether or not the Act was a violation of the U.N. (who cares about the UN?), but the quote from Article Six of the United States Constitution is incomplete. The whole clause includes the Constitution and all US laws, including the Iraq Resolution. The section as it stands suggests that treaties are above the laws, which is not the case.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...

Ipankonin 09:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As the quote says treaties are part of US law and as such legally binding. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 11:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It also lists the Constition and Laws in the same category, but the Constitution is greater than laws. Many laws have been struck down as unconstitutional.  So if it lists the Constitution first, then laws, and treaties last, it would put the laws above treaties.  Even if they were all equal, the more recent act would take precedent.  The U.S. is a sovereign nation, and the makers of the Constitution would not want to sacrifice their sovereignty by making our nation bound hand and foot by treaties.  It would put us at a huge disadvantage versus countries that place very little importance on treaties (such as Saddam's Iraq).


 * I find it irritating that you simply repeated what's in the article. It shows disrespect to me, to everybody that reads it, and to the purpose of the talk page.  It does your argument discredit when you don't bother to contribute to it.  Ipankonin 08:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you are under the impression international law can be ignored whenever we choose. If that were the case SH is not guilty of anything since undoubtedly under Iraqi law he did nothing wrong. Further, if any country can simply ignore its treaties it effectively reduces international law to nothing more than a gentlemen's agreement. Under these circumstances war crimes, human rights abuse, and genocide are allowed as long as local law makes it legal. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i>
 * That's precisely what treaties are. Countries are sovereign.  There is no higher power in the world.  Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and Mao killed more than the two of them combined.  Nobody did anything about that.  Did the US violate international law?  Technically, yes.  But it doesn't matter.  The leaders of the world know that the world is better now that Saddam is gone.  There won't be any UN resolution condemning the US.  No country will aid terrorists just because the US technically violated a treaty (some countries aid them for other reasons however).  Our President will not be charged with war crimes.  As far as international law being ignored whenever we choose, the answer is yes.  Sovereign countries may take into account the consequences of their actions and act as they see fit.  In this particular case, there were no consequences besides the war itself.  Ipankonin 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Some observations Respectfully Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 08:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The Geneva Conventions are part of international law and not US law.
 * 2) The Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions.
 * 3) Following that ruling Bush explained that enhanced interrogation techniques were no longer possible as the ruling rendered them illegal.
 * 4) To remedy the situation the Military Commissions Act5 was adopted.
 * 5) If international law can be ignored why did the SDupreme Court rule otherwise and why did Bush insist he needed the MCA to address the legal concerns raised by that ruling?
 * 6) If the US can ignore international law everybody can, and as such there is no argument for attacking Iraq, Iran or any country we feel violates human rights. Clearly, the US felt Iraq could be attacked to uphold international law, the consequence is that that they themselves are also bound by it. We cannot pick and choose which law to follow.
 * 7) If countries are souvereign and international law is merely a parlour game why exactly did we have the Nurenberg Trials? Are you saying these were illegal and the international community had no legal right to prosecute the Nazis?
 * 8) You are right the US is guilty of war crimes but will never be called on it. That is because unfortunately international law is still more about politics than justice. However, the fact some criminals evade accountability does not mean that i.e. stealing is allowed.
 * 9) The fact the US vehemently sabotages the ICC is evidence they nevertheless fear accountability.
 * 10) The fact the US has the right to veto might explain why no resolution exists condemming them for their illegal actions.
 * 11) As to your claim the world is better of, apparently you missed all the reports detailing how terrorism has increased sharply after invading Iraq and how Iraq is the University of modern terrorists. Since everybody outside the Bush administration acknowledges that the invasion has made things worse it is clear you failed to notice the deteriorating global situation. But how about Iraq? This may support my opninion you are willfully ignoring evidence contrary to your position.
 * 12) How exactly can countries and companies secure their interests in an international community when there are no rules (international law is merely an inconvenience) and they have no way of protecting their assets in other countries from being taken? So if a US company has offices in Europe how does the company prevent Europe from taking over and making that US company a European one?
 * Eventually they'll get sick of the carnage and leave us alone. We didn't go to war to make friends.  We went there to kill bad guys that want to kill us.  When the US joined WWII, the Germans launched a propaganda recruiting campaign that claimed the US was controlled by Jews, and they were able to increase the size of their army (ironically, the imams are claiming the same thing now).


 * I think what's really sad is that you condemn the leader of the free world as a war criminal and make no mention of the people who cut the heads off of innocent children. There's a rumor that AQ baked 11-year old boys and served them to their parents on a platter.  Is it true?  Probably not.  But it's not much different from sawing somebody's head off and putting the video on the Internet where his family could see.  What part of the Geneva Conventions covers the beheading of children?  Under what circumstances is this sort of behavior acceptable?  Why aren't you condemning Iran for sending men and weapons across the border for the sole purpose of promoting civil war?  We gave the Iraqis free elections, and we're the bad guys?


 * What are you doing to stop terrorists? Are you trying to hug them to death?  Win them over with words and flowers?  What has your country done to make the world safer?  Your country's failure to intervene in China after WWII caused the deaths of 80 million people.  When you didn't help us in the Vietnam War, the result was genocide in Cambodia.  There's only one nation in the world that has consistently involved itself in fights to make the world a better place, and every time it's proven right in hindsight.  I really don't see how you think you have any moral authority over me or any of my countrymen whatsoever, especially the person whose prompt and consistent action has prevented any major terrorist attack on the United States since September 11th, 2001.
 * Ipankonin 07:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize I've gone down the troll road pretty far with Nescio, but there's another side to his debate that's not mentioned very often, and since he has vehemently stated his own opinion, I feel that in the interest of impartiality I should defend the other side. I think that in the future we should limit ourselves to the Act of Congress.  Ipankonin 08:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So, after acknowledging international law is binding to the US you assert I am a troll. Isn't that part of being a troll: calling others names? Also, your comments conspicuously ignore the facts. Since you feel the need to ignore historical fact, and call everyone pointing that out a troll, we can consider the debate closed, as you fail to understand that ad hominems are a good indicator of someones case lacking any rational argument. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 11:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I was just saying that it's gone too far, and I don't want to argue anymore. I think we need to reach a consensus.  Will you agree that the Iraq Resolution was a violation of the UN charter, but it was not a violation of US law, as stated by another well written, well-documented article, as well as by the court case Doe v. Bush that states:

Nor is there clear evidence of congressional abandonment of the authority to declare war to the President. To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress. It has enacted several relevant pieces of legislation expressing support for an aggressive posture toward Iraq, including authorization of the prior war against Iraq and of military assistance for groups that would overthrow Saddam Hussein. It has also accepted continued American participation in military activities in and around Iraq, including flight patrols and missile strikes. Finally, the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an "authorization" of such a war... ...As the circumstances presented here do not warrant judicial intervention, the appropriate recourse for those who oppose war with Iraq lies with the political branches.
 * Do I have your support in calling for an admin to edit the protected page? Ipankonin 02:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nomen Nescio seems to really believe in the authority of this "international law" but I'm afraid it is even less of a serious institution than he'd like to admit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law The descriptions within do everything short of just calling it a gentlemen's agreement. What do you call law with no judicial or enforcement arms? Break it down to simplistic terms, we pursued a peaceful route to verifiable disarmment of Saddam after 1991. After a dozen years and as many resolutions, this was where our pursuit of an "international law" solution had left us: "As Dr. Blix indicated to the Security Council on January 27, 2003, Iraq had not come “to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it.” The conclusion is inescapable that at the time of the outbreak of the 2003 conflict, Iraq had decided to refuse to comply with its disarmament obligations. This placed Iraq in material breach of Resolution 1441 as well as Resolution 687... ...What is important for jus ad bellum purposes is what the United States and its allies reasonably understood the facts to be at the start of hostilities, not what turned up afterwards." (University of California at Berkeley School of Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series Paper No. 145, 2004 International Law and the War in Iraq By John C. Yoo)http://ssrn.com/abstract=492002 That important and credible legal analysis explains why we were well within our rights under "international law" should one choose to believe such a mystical, elusive entity holds jurisprudence over this matter.Batvette 09:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're certainly right when it comes to US law. The UK, however, has accepted compulsory jurisdiction of the ICC.  The ICC is unable to prosecute aggression (Nescio would blame the US for that; he'd probably be right), but I read a memo where Blair's law adviser cautioned him about the possibility of soldiers being prosecuted for war crimes.  It doesn't seem likely, however.
 * I accept your argument whole-heartedly for the US (this article is about just the US of course), and there have historically been problems enforcing the sentences when somebody is convicted in international court, but there are some countries where there really is such thing as international law, at least on paper. Coincidentally, the ICC is in Nescio's Netherlands, so you can probably see why he seems to have an affinity for international law. (Nescio: With my last statement, my intention is to say that different cultures have different values.  I have no problem with the possibility that you may be offended by that statement.  I'll take heart in the fact that I defended your position on international law just now.)  Isaac Pankonin 10:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Batvette, I just read that paper by Yoo that you linked to. I don't think violation of the UN charter ever took place.  Isaac Pankonin 11:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's try and discuss the facts and not talking points.

1. Prior to the Iraq invasion there was grave doubt as to the veracitry of the claims. To ignore the fact the then available evidence did not constitute a smoking gun and then rewrite history by saying "what the United States and its allies reasonably understood the facts to be at the start of hostilities" is unfortunate. Every report has determined that every intelligence agency "reasonably understood" the allegations were not supported by solid evidence. —This is part of a comment by Nescio which got interrupted by the following:
 * Please supply a neutral source. I refuse to find backup for your statements on your behalf.  The Downing Street memo itself states that Iraq still has WMD, and it is now unacceptable after Sept. 11th.  Also see former CIA director George Tenet quotes above at .Isaac Pankonin 08:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please look in the article and you find the sources, directly after it discusses the lack of evidence. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 06:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are a few articles from 2001 and 2003 which indicate that the German intelligence agency (BND) had serious concerns regarding increasing activity with regards to Iraq's biological and chemical weapons program, and also the resumption of its nuclear weapons program:, and . In particular the articles state that the German intelligence assessment concludes:
 * Iraq has resumed its nuclear program and may be capable of producing an atomic bomb in three years;
 * Iraq is developing its Al Samoud and Ababil 100/Al Fatah short-range rockets, which can deliver a 300kg payload 150km. Medium-range rockets capable of carrying a warhead 3,000km could be built by 2005 - far enough to reach Europe;
 * Iraq is capable of manufacturing solid rocket fuel;
 * A Delhi-based company, blacklisted by the German government because of its alleged role in weapons proliferation, has acted as a buyer on Iraq's behalf. Deliveries have been made via Malaysia and Dubai. Indian companies have copied German machine tools down to the smallest detail and such equipment has been installed in numerous chemicals projects. [Note that such Indian cooperation with Iraq is something of a tradition: during the Iran-Iraq war India delivered precursors for warfare agents to Iraq - and later was found to have delivered quantities of the same materials to Iran. Baghdad's middleman at the time, an Iraqi with a German passport, founded a company in Singapore expressly for this purpose.]
 * Since the departure of the UN inspectors, the number of Iraqi sites involved in chemicals production has increased from 20 to 80. Of that total, a quarter could be involved in weapons production.
 * Also, regarding the BND intelligence assessment, Friedbert Pflueger, a member of the German parliament, stated "If we trust our [intelligence] services, and I do, then we know that there exist weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." He goes on to say that the classified BND report should be made public "so that Herr Schroeder cannot continue to spread the impression that the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a figment of George W Bush's imagination".
 * I'm putting this on the Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq talk page as well. We should definitely refer to this.  Isaac Pankonin 07:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Whether the US tried every possible means of finding a non-military solution is open for debate. Surely the fact weaponinspectors, who said they were making progress and repeatedly asked for more time as they felt a non-military solution was possible, were forced out prematurely seems to contradict that view. The point they made is supported by the fact no WMD's have been found. But more to the point, there are numerous "legal analyses" (one of which by someone who took part in the Nurenberg Trials) doubting the legality of the invasion of Iraq. Under WP policy that makes it a valid comment. Of course, legal opinion supporting the legallity needs to be included as you correctly pointed out. —This is part of a comment by Nescio which got interrupted by the following:
 * We must certainly use multiple opinions on this issue. It's hotly debated.  However, your comment about non-military intervention is moot.  Blix's 2003 report also stated that Iraq had not fully accepted the inspections process, even twelve years after they were first imposed.  In Yoo's opinion paper, that statement is crucial.  Resolution 687 suspended hostile activities in 1991.  It did not terminate them.  In other UN actions, authorization of force has explicitly been terminated.  The US, the UK, and France have used the "suspension" several times beginning in 1993 to enforce UN resolutions through military action.  Resolution 1441 stated that it was Iraq's "final opportunity" to comply, and there were actual references to 687 in the language.  Yoo argues that Iraq's noncompliance after 1441, stated for the record by the chief UN weapons inspector, was sufficient to once again recall the suspension under 687, and it was under this authority that the US and the UK acted. Isaac Pankonin 08:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently we have sources doubting the legality of Iraq, that is sufficient under WP policy. Whatever we think of it, the weapon inspectors were forced out and the evidence on which the war was started was shockingly thin. Also, the resolutions did not allow military force but you probably have read articles explaining that. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 06:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

3. This is not about the ICC, although it technically is part of international law. —This is part of a comment by Nescio which got interrupted by the following:
 * This article is about the US, and the US never ratified the Rome Treaty. I agree that ICC should not be mentioned. Isaac Pankonin 08:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

4. As the US Supreme Court ruled international law is binding to the US, and Bush agreed, it is difficult to understand on what grounds you keep claiming it is not binding. —This is part of a comment by Nescio which got interrupted by the following:
 * See Legality_of_the_Iraq_War, the last paragraph, specifically the last sentence. I might add that the resolution was challenged in court, and the complaint was dismissed.  To say that it is illegal in US law after it has been held up in court is to suggest that our court system is either incompetent or corrupt.  That argument has no foundation.Isaac Pankonin 08:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically no court has ruled the war is legal, specifically there is no ruling denying the applicability or eliminating the prohibition of an illegal war. To say otherwise is incorrect. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 06:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

5. As that ruling refuted the "GC are quaint" rationale which Yoo promulgated I think we should consider the fact that his opnions are not set in stone and, however strange, even be wrong. —This is part of a comment by Nescio which got interrupted by the following:
 * Actually, the tone of Yoo's opinion is the opposite. He states that the opinions of France, Germany, and Russia suggest that a UN resolution is only a temporary agreement between nations instead of permanent legislation.  He assumes the legitimacy of international law throughout.Isaac Pankonin 08:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

6. Whether a law can be enforced is irrelevant. Unless you suggest that in Yellowstone Park US law does not apply, it clearly is a place US law is difficult if not impossible to enforce. For many reasons a particular law may be difficult to enforce, but when caught violating it you will have a hard time arguing that the judge has no authority to rule and to hold you accountable. —This is part of a comment by Nescio which got interrupted by the following:
 * I agree that enforcement should not be mentioned in the article. However, as Yoo stated, UN resolutions were drafted in protest to the US invasion of Panama.  Even if the US can veto a resolution in the UNSC, a proposed resolution can still be introduced to make a protest for the record.Isaac Pankonin 08:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

7. Regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity, already UN members are mandated, by the treaties they signed, to prosecute any suspect if he/she in in their territory. —This is part of a comment by Nescio which got interrupted by the following:
 * According to The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there are less than 20 cases of war crime by coalition forces in Iraq, and all of them are being prosecuted by their governments. Assuming that the invasion was judged to be an act of aggression (there are opinions both ways of course; we've been hotly debating this item ourselves), I imagine that President Bush is protected by the Iraq Resolution under US law.  In my layman's perspective, it would seem unjust if our judiciary (or Congress, in the case of impeachment) condemned a man for doing what Congress told him to do, especially since the law stood up to a judicial challenge in Doe v. Bush.Isaac Pankonin 08:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You must be aware that Congress did not order Bush to invade. It was Bush who strongarmed politicians (implying any vote against him is a vote for al Qaeda) into supporting his wish to invade Iraq. And again, no court has ruled on whether the war in Iraq violates the UN Charter. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 06:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

8. Pointing out the ICC is in The Hague is not offensive to me. The notion that international law can be ignored referring to "different cultures have different values" seems to be a misinterpretation of what the rule of law stands for. —This is part of a comment by Nescio which got interrupted by the following:
 * "Different countries have different constitutions" would probably be better. I stated that the UK has compulsory jurisdiction with the ICC.  The US does not.  As to the rule of law, see my answer to #4.Isaac Pankonin 08:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See my response there. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 06:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 16:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Doe v. Bush
'''The resolution was challenged in court, and the case was dismissed. It's important that readers know this. I will ask for an admin to add this if there's no objection. The following is a draft:'''

The Iraq Resolution was challenged in court by "a coalition of US soldiers, parents of US soldiers, and Members of Congress" prior to the invasion. They claimed that it did not explicitly declare war as required by the Constitution. The case was first dismissed on February 24th, 2003 by US District Court Judge Joseph Tauro. It was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On March 13th, a three-judge panel affirmed the decision to dismiss the complaint. Judge Lynch wrote: An extreme case might arise, for example, if Congress gave absolute discretion to the President to start a war at his or her will... Plaintiffs' objection to the October Resolution does not, of course, involve any such claim. Nor does it involve a situation where the President acts without any apparent congressional authorization, or against congressional opposition... To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress. Lynch concluded that the Judiciary could not intervene, since there was not a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress at that time. On March 17th, the day the invasion started, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing. Their petition was denied the next day.

Isaac Pankonin 09:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC) I insist that you're mistaken. If you read Judge Lynch's opinion, you'll note that the plaintiffs presented two different and independent arguments. If they thought your argument was possible, they would have added a third. The Supremacy Clause makes treaties equal to US Federal Law. The Iraq Resolution is a US Federal Law. If a treaty and a law conflict, the one with the later date takes precedence. See Legality of the Iraq War, and look at the last paragraph in the section. Isaac Pankonin 07:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We need to mention it but also mention it is not a court ruling. Dismissing the case challenging the Presidents authority is not equal to a verdict saying the war is legal. More to the point, the prohibition on wars of aggression by the UN Charter is not refuted. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 16:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If your interpretation is right international law effectively is abolished. All we have to do is sign a treaty and after that (making it more recent) adopt a law nullifying it. If the US wants to torture (example) all it has to do is legalise torture and the UN Convention Against Torture can be ignored. Although I am no lawyer I doubt that is a correct representation. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 06:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

US Supreme Court case Whitney v. Robinson was written in 1888 and has been cited in about a dozen other Supreme Court cases, most recently in April, 2007. By the constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of legislation. Both are declared by that instrument to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other. When the two relate to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either; but, if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other: provided, always, the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self- executing. If the country with which the treaty is made is dissatisfied with the action of the legislative department, it may present its complaint to the executive head of the government, and take such other measures as it may deem essential for the protection of its interests. The courts can afford no redress. Whether the complaining nation has just cause of complaint, or our country was justified in its legislation, are not matters for judicial cognizance.

Isaac Pankonin 08:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please add the following under a Level 2 headline titled "Doe v. Bush" between the "History" and "House Vote" sections.

The Iraq Resolution was challenged in court by "a coalition of US soldiers, parents of US soldiers, and Members of Congress" prior to the invasion. They claimed that "Congress and the President are in collision -- that the President is about to act in violation of the October Resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion -- that Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war."  The case was first dismissed on February 24th, 2003 by US District Court Judge Joseph Tauro. It was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On March 13th, a three-judge panel affirmed the decision to dismiss the complaint. Judge Lynch wrote: An extreme case might arise, for example, if Congress gave absolute discretion to the President to start a war at his or her will... Plaintiffs' objection to the October Resolution does not, of course, involve any such claim. Nor does it involve a situation where the President acts without any apparent congressional authorization, or against congressional opposition... To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress. Lynch concluded that the Judiciary could not intervene, because there was not a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress at that time. On March 17th, the day the invasion started, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing. Their petition was denied the next day. From Whitney v. Robertson: "if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other" (See full quote above). What that means is that if the Iraq Resolution is in conflict with the UN Charter, the Iraq Resolution wins. Do you think that the war opponents in the US would allow it to go on if they thought it could be stopped? They would have challenged it by now. Isaac Pankonin 09:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC) It seems to me that you understand the facts. I disagree with your conclusions, but I decline your offer of an argument. Isaac Pankonin 05:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a court ruling countering the explicit prohibition of an illegal war? Without a verdict saying the UN Charter does not apply we still cannot for 100% claim the war is legal. The US is bound to the UN Charter. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 06:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I answered higher up but let's try again. Please answer this: if the US were to legalise torture would that mean UNCAT no longer applies? If a treaty is nullified by more recently adopted laws, how would anyone want to engage in such a treaty knowing it can be readily ignored after adopting a new law? In other words if international law can simply be put aside it effectively is abolished since nobody is bound by it. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 15:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry you disagree with your own position. Referring to Whitney v. Robertson ipso facto makes UNCAT, or any international law, null and void the moment a more recent US law contradicts said treaty. The fact you refuse to accept the consequence of your statement is unfortunate. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

 * Protection has been reduced. Please tread carefully. --MZMcBride 01:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Invoking 9-11
'''This is another section that has two different topics tangled into a single debate: 1. Is the content of the President's speeches in support of an act of Congress relevant for an article about that resolution? I suggest that this is relevant. 2. Is there an assertion from enough reliable sources to support the claim that "Many commentators noted that Bush implied a link between 9/11 and Saddam," or is there not enough third part material to prevent this note about the response to Bush's speech from being notable?''' I suggest that there is enough support to appropriately indicate that this was a widespread allegation about Bush's speech. For Wikipedia to take a stand on whether or not that allegation is true would be original research if it deals with implications rather than the literal text of the speech. VisitorTalk 06:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the Bush administration repeatedly, even today, has invoked, implied, suggested, referred, linked, et cetera Iraq to 9-11. To object to mentioning it was "suggested" which is fully sourced, seems overly protective of the Bush administration. Please observe this quote. "'In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 -- the day the war in Iraq began -- Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'' (emphasis mine)" and "'Bush worked to fuel the connection, talking about the Sept. 11 terrorists and Saddam in the same breath. 'Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam,' Bush said in his State of the Union message last year, before the war.'" I therefore restored the statement it was "suggested." You may note that a suggestion (meaning it is implied) is not equal to an outright "statement". Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 12:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't allow it in this article for three reasons:
 * It's not mentioned in the resolution.
 * It's a violation of WP:V. Bush never said it.  You haven't supplied a source that quotes him as saying it.  There's a big difference between "Iraq is linked to al Qaeda" and "Iraq planned 9/11".
 * It's a violation of WP:POV. You are doing exactly what you claim Bush did: distorting facts to suit your agenda, an agenda that the majority of users that have posted on this page have commented about.  You are bringing discredit on the article.

Example: You misquoted the letter to Congress. The actual letter goes like this:"(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 [the Iraq Resolution] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (emphasis added)"As you can see, the assertion that Iraq is linked to 9/11 does not come from Bush. It comes from the biased article you pulled that quote from. He was simply stating that it's part of the ongoing effort to stop terrorism.

On the other hand, he has stated the opposite quite clearly:"PRESIDENT BUSH: 'We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th.' (President Bush, Remarks After Meeting With Members Of The Congressional Conference Committee On Energy Legislation, Washington, D.C., 9/17/03)"So on one hand we have vague inferences and shoddy journalism, and on the other hand we have unequivocal statements. The choice is clear: It doesn't belong in the article. Isaac Pankonin 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your selective use of sources is troubling. Many articles, I used only 3, have documented the fact that Bush and others repeatedly invoked 9-11 and one of the above quotes clearly says he did say so. It is certainly not POV to mention that fact.
 * The resolution says "The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them."
 * Bush said "the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'"
 * Since when are the Institute for Public Accuracy, the New York Times and the Washington Post not allowed as source?
 * How do we know the case you presented is about the Supremacy Clause and the ones I presented are not? Could you provide a source stating Breard v. Greene is about the Supremacy clause? And on what grounds are other cases that also revolve around the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations not about the Supremacy Clause? Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 06:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide the source that quotes Bush saying "Saddam Hussein planned/aided/executed September 11th." Then I'll let you put it in there.  You say it's happened repeatedly, and I haven't seen it once.  Isaac Pankonin 06:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, the Washington Post and the New York Times are both known for liberal bias, especially in editorials, which you seem to like quoting. Isaac Pankonin 09:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Slightly altered my reaction above. The quotes are in the sources: "the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'" You yourself quote that fact that countries involved in 9-11 can be attacked. That ipso facto means Iraq was involved. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 07:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You've used that quote three times now. It misleadingly quotes the letter to Congress.  See my original note above.  Isaac Pankonin 08:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Quote from one of your sources: "Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington" Isaac Pankonin 09:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You may have noticed the article does not assert Bush did, it merely says that the Bush administration repeatedly invoked, implied, suggested, referred, et cetera. Of course, we can argue over whether those actions fall under the heading of misleading the public, but that was not the topic. The question is did the Bush administration influence our view of Iraq as being involved in 9-11? Clearly a multitude of sources feel they did. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Third Opinion Hi everyone. Ok, I hate to choose sides on this one but given how controversial the subject is, I'm going to suggest leaving out any commentary on this at all. The truth is, using terms like "suggested" or "implied" all lay themselves to POV, and selecting certain sources to advance a position is giving Undue weight, as someone already said. Plus, saying BLANK and BLANK are subject to BLANK bias is pushing the boundaries of NPOV even further. This is just my opinion, and if this continues escalating you should get a mediator. Happy editing. Bulldog123 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure how it is undue weight when the Bush administration repeatedly, and to this day, invoked 9-11 to increase fear and ensure support for a variety of dubious policy choices. One of them being the invasion of Iraq, and the looming invasion of Iran appears to be presented in an identical fashion. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 11:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to go through all the trouble of an RFC, I'm fine with that. Even if they allow it in the article, it will have to be with a disclaimer added, "It's not stated in the resolution. Nobody in the administration ever claimed it was true.  Bush has unequivocally stated that it was not true."  Those three statements are undisputed fact, and I would consider it my duty to add them. If you really want the truth on the page, you would consider it your duty as well. I think the addition of a paragraph that discusses something that has no bearing on the subject of the article is a mistake. I don't want the article encumbered that way. However, if it's something you believe in, we can certainly go through the process of an RFC. Isaac Pankonin 06:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't need to go to RFC so maybe your suggestion can be the compromise we need. How about:
 * The Bush administration explicitly denied Iraq was involved in 9-11(ref here) yet .... (name sources) contend they did make repeated comments implying a link between SH and the attacks.(ref here)


 * This is a suggestion so feel free to alter the exact wording. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 15:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be in there at all. Isaac Pankonin 22:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Shall we exlude the allegations of WMD's too? Clearly we have siffucient WP:RS to warrant mentioning it. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 07:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now there's even more bias! Could you make it more balanced?  I would revert, but the last time I did that we got into an argument over 6 words that has lasted 2 weeks.  Isaac Pankonin 09:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Trying to accomodate your wishes. Apparently you disagree so feel free to suggest what you think a balanced comment would be. Coincidentally I already asked that and you declined. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 09:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, and as Bulldog123 said, it shouldn't be in the article at all. Isaac Pankonin 00:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In Re: Nescio's argument in the RFC section:
 * The Resolution cites "efforts by the Congress", but it doesn't say "This is an effort by the Congress to fight the terrorists of 9/11." I'm a layman when it comes to law, but I've experienced enough of this world to know that laws are usually written to stand for themselves and to not require interpretation.  Isaac Pankonin 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why is this sentence included if not to state this is a response to 9-11. What exactly is the resolution saying? Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 11:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm a layman on this subject, but my interpretation is that they put it in there to relate it to the war on terrorism, which as it said "includes" the 9/11 terrorists, and the word "include" means that it's not exclusively against the 9/11 terrorists. It's a fact that Saddam Hussein gave money to families of suicide bombers in Palestine, so it's not a huge stretch to include him in that group.  Isaac Pankonin 00:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * These are the sections that I'm talking about: (emphasis mine)"''Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;''"Isaac Pankonin 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag claiming POV has been added. WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." How can an adequately sourced statement, which explicitly attributes who says what, violate what the above quote says? Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 14:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's under dispute and RFC. I might add that from the language, it sounds like Bush intentionally lied to pass the bill.  I don't think it's too much to ask for neutral language.  Isaac Pankonin 00:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of inciting wrath, in my opinion, for somebody to state that Nescio said that he intended to invalidate the RFC because of CANVASS is a lot less of a leap than to state that the President implied Iraq was linked to 9/11. I'm using this merely to illustrate the point. I'm well aware that he didn't state that. All I'm saying is it's less of a leap than what is in the article. Isaac Pankonin 07:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Supremacy Clause

 * Since no source explicitly discusses the Supremacy Clause I deleted the paragraph. To only mention a favourable ruling while deleting numerous analyses to the contrary is not a NPOV thing to do. Please allow both interpreatations or leave the topic out. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 07:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your additions were off topic. You said I shouldn't include a case with the Vienna Protocols either, and I agreed, so I deleted both mine and yours. That topic was all fact. You're acting irrationally. If you want to include something, that's fine, but make it about the Supremacy Clause. Isaac Pankonin 07:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not POV either. It specifically states that international treaties are binding. Isaac Pankonin 08:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think some of what you were trying to say is that the link between the Iraq Invasion, the UN Charter, and the Supremacy clause wasn't fully explained. I made an addition that hopefully addresses this, and I included a source that argues from your side. Isaac Pankonin 09:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Some observations With the above in mind it is difficult to understand why your OR is relevant and included but the sourced rebuttal detailing the fact the US cannot ignore international law has to be removed. Either you accept a balanced presentation in which both views are shown, or you adhere to the strict letter of policy and disallow your OR. I have no objection to your comment as it is a reasonable interpretation. However, should you insist on removing a sourced critique of that interpretation than I must insist on WP:NOR and demand a legal source explicitly linking the court ruling to the proposition the US is allowed to violate the UN Charter and its prohibition on illegal wars. I restored the rebuttal in the mean time. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 13:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) International law is binding to all who signed.
 * 2) The US itself determined that international law is effectively US law.
 * 3) You cite a court ruling claiming it stands for the proposition the US can ignore international law.
 * 4) I cite several articles opposing that view.
 * 5) The US has invaded Iraq allegedly violating international law.
 * 6) You claim through the previous point the US is not bound by the prohibition on an illegal war.
 * 7) There is not one source to support your interpretation.
 * As an aside, I understand exactly what you are trying to say. Heck, I even support your view of the ruling. But, as I said before, I doubt you comprehend the ramifications of your theory as it invalidates international law. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I originally imported it from Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. There was a source listed there that I couldn't verify (it's a book - not online and not in my local library), so I didn't include it here.  But I put it in this article today to satisfy WP:SYN, which you rightly pointed out I violated.  From looking at the history of that article with changes and comments by User:Zer0faults, the source would support a much stronger statement in favor of the legality of the war under US law, but the language was toned down to satisfy the POV of other editors.


 * Also interesting is the case of Lieutenant Ehren Watada who refused to go to Iraq on the grounds that the war was illegal. I don't think it really bears on this article, because that happened in 2006, after the invasion and after United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, which established the coalition forces as the legal authority in Iraq.  Naturally, the judge said the order he refused to follow was not illegal.  It's not over yet, though.  Somebody made a mistake in the trial, and they have to do it again.  Here have been some editorial opinions on the subject:


 * If you would like to add a statement that says it hasn't specifically been tried in court, I would support that. I was against it before, but I'm more reasonable now.
 * Isaac Pankonin 09:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting points. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Could you explain what the source said? Does it link the ruling to the UN CHarter?
 * 2) Regarding Watada, I don't think the judge ruled the Iraq war is legal. More to the point, the judge appeared to say a US soldier cannot determine whether an order given is illegal and as such he was not allowed to use that as defense. Interestingly we have an international court ruling stating that I was only following orders is not sufficient when one is charged with war crimes. So on the one hand Watada is not allowed to ignore illegal orders, but he would still be liable for prosecution in case of war crimes. A classic catch-22 situation.
 * 3) Unfortunately you seem to think there is a UN resolution stating the invasion of Iraq was and is legal. That is not correct. The UN only established the current legal parameters in Iraq but has never ruled upon the legality of the invasion.
 * 4) The sources above are interesting but unfortunately I don't think they are acceptable under WP:RS


 * I don't know what the source said. I didn't read it.  If you really want to know you can ask the editor this information originated with.  Since the section in this article contains the same information as the paragraph in Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, anything that can be cited there can be cited here.  Here's the change where he said "Fixed wording according to source":"Treaties do not necessarily supersede other acts of Congress; as the Supreme Court stated in Whitney v. Robertson, 'By the constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing . . . with an act of legislation. . . . if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other'. Therefore, the authorization for use of force (noted above) would have taken precedent over the UN Charters requirements for beginning conflicts, as per the 'last-in-time rule', if there was any conflict to begin with."


 * It was never my intention to assert that the Watada case has bearing on this article. My exact words were, "I don't think it really bears on this article".
 * Isaac Pankonin 05:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Sincerely Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 15:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Not sure what the source is to support. Nobody knows, so why is it there?
 * 2) As I already pointed out I have no desire to strictly enforce policy. Meaning, the current version is acceptable to me as it presents both sides in a reasonable fashion.
 * 3) With the previous in mind I think we should delete the source as it is a mystery what it is saying and both of us have already reached a compromise in the current version making it superfluous.


 * From that logic, you would delete every source on Wikipedia that is in print and not online. It can stay.  Isaac Pankonin 22:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No my logic is that you offer a source you yourself have not read. That seems inappropriate. At least somebody has to have information as to why a source is used. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 07:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, the information didn't originate with me. It's almost verbatim from Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Legality of the Iraq War.  Why did nobody challenge the statement in those articles?  Isaac Pankonin 00:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you declined the compromise. OK, thtat's allowed. But then I demand sources that do not violate RS. WP is not allowed as source. Therefore you have to explain what that source is saying to support its use. If you don't know, and you don't since you have not read it, we cannot use it. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend rewriting this section because it encompasses two different controversies about alleged violations of the Constitution. 1. Claim that the resolution violates obligations under previously signed treaties. 2. Claim that even if this is so, new law can override old treaties. I believe that drawing this distinction will make the section easier to follow. VisitorTalk 15:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree. We have sources addressing point 1, but unfortunately we have no source detailing the fact the UN charter can be ignored, which is point 2. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In Re: Nescio's comment in the RFC section:
 * Have you read every source? How do you know it's not valid if you haven't read it?  Isaac Pankonin 22:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I have, except the one you provided that nobody, not even you, can tell which statement it is supposed to support. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Might I propose a compromise? Could I get some time to look at it?  I'm not trying to pull wool over your eyes.  It's at a university library nearby.  I just haven't had time to go there.  If you could give me a week, that should be long enough.  In the meantime, let neither of us edit that section until I post a direct quote from the book that associates Whitney with the Iraq Resolution.  If I haven't by midnight UTC September 4th, you may delete.  Sound fair?  I'm not saying I agree with you, but there is a fair case on your side.  Isaac Pankonin 02:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You may remember that my offer was to leave the article as it was and not be overly legalistic. Meaning, let the Supremacy-thingy stay and my addition regarding international law. Then, for whatever reason you declined the compromise and wanted the latter removed and therefore I am now mandating you provode a source for the notion the UN charter can be ignored. Again, if you agree on the international law part I have no problem with the Supremacy Clause part. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My problem with your additions was that they were placed so as to refute the position that Congress may override a treaty under US domestic law, a position which they do not, in fact, conflict with. Now, since they have been in the "Applicability" section, they are still placed that way.  Clearly, the sentence "These rulings would suggest the US could legally ignore its aforementioned obligations under international law," suggests that there is about to be an argument that opposes that position.  The argument you then put forward is that under international law, a country may not ignore international law.  I don't necessarily disagree with that statement.  However, it does not refute that under US domestic law, Congress may override a treaty.  In short, I don't necessarily disagree with its inclusion in the entire article, but its current position underneath the Supremacy Clause section with that sort of language is unacceptable to me.
 * I think we should take VisitorTalk's idea and combine the Supremacy and Applicability sections with titles broad enough to include both. In my mind, it should look like this:


 * 1. The Relationship between International Law and US Domestic Law
 * 1.1 The Legality of Treaties under US Law
 * The position that the invasion was illegal under US law because of the Supremacy Clause
 * Cornell Law Review article
 * Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (Geneva Conventions under US law)
 * 1.2 Conflict between International Law and US Law
 * The position that the invasion was legal under US law because Congress may override a treaty
 * Whitney v. Robertson & Reid v. Covert
 * Other cases where the US was in conflict with international law
 * Germany v. United States of America
 * Medellin v. Dretke
 * I still intend to look at that source, because I'm curious about what exactly it says. Let me know what you think about this.  Isaac Pankonin 00:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In Re: Ipankonin's comment in the RFC section:
 * Exactly what article, and which source, say that this reolution invalidates the UN charter? Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sean D. Murphy. "United States Practice in International Law Volume 2, 2002–2004", Cambridge University Press. I haven't read it.  I plan on reading it within a week.  From the context of versions and editing comments of the Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq article, I feel I can confidently state that it contains the synthesis this section needs.  Isaac Pankonin 01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

 * Ended RFC. Isaac Pankonin 06:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

First, will the parties involved cease posting their opinions here. You've asked for outside perspectives due to your disagreements. By carrying on your debate here you are discouraging many from joining in. You are also attempting to appear as a person responding to the RFC, when in fact you are an involved party. A short comment explaining your individual positions is enough to let outsiders understand the positions. The long back and forth is not productive here---we can read your arguments above. I'll take a look at this, but I'm on a business trip this week and might not get to it right away and need to look at the sources and arguments before I weigh in. I should also note, that I was asked to take a look at this discussion.Balloonman 07:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we take our indented replies out? I'm concerned at what you say.  I apologize.  Isaac Pankonin 07:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I must admit the numerous advertisements to (randomly chosen?!) users, posted by Isaac Pankonin to invite comment here, are troubling and may invalidate any result. Not sure how to respond. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He contacted 3 people, not numerous people. I possibly would have come here anyway as I do partake in RFC's.  But the other two people have not shown up here.  The key is that if they were invited here, then they should ID themselves.  When I pointed out to Isaac that he violated CANVASS, he deleted the notices to the two other people.  So, it is only fair to AGF on his part. Regardless, his contacting a few people does not provide the justification for invalidating the results of an RFC if the results are not what you want.Balloonman 19:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been reading the discussion above and researching the notes and comments on this topic and have to say, having read the above, your comments here disturb me even more. A mediator was brought in to discuss this subject, the mediators opinion differed from your position and that postion was discard.  A third opinion was sought, again, the third opinion was ignored by you.  Now, you've already announced your intention to invalidate any result of this RFC if the RFC doesn't side with you.  This is disturbing.Balloonman 01:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Some observations Respectfully Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 06:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) No previous discussion exists on the same topic as this RFC.
 * 2) The mediation you refer to concluded, as I stated above, that criticism is allowed in this article. GATXER fought touth and nail to prevent that.
 * 3) The third opinion was invited without me knowing and is not binding. I am not required to accept it and as such have offered to ask more input on more questions. Hence the current RFC.
 * 4) Not sure which refs you feel fail WP:RS. Most are mainstream and even the biased ones are adequately identified as required by policy. As such every source is allowed and to state otherwise seems a misrepresentation of policy. If however you want to replace them with sources more to your liking feel free. In any case you admit that the story told is truthful and can be sourced.
 * 5) Your suggestion I invalidate the RFC merely to evade a result I dislike grossly misrepresents my words and appears to violate WP:AGF.
 * Your words were laying the ground work, if I misread your post/history, I apologize. But you did say that the breach of process may "invalidate any result."  As for the refs, Wp:rs.  Any webpage that advocates a position is not a reliable source.  The Republican Party's webpage would be a questionable source for public affairs.  The Democratic Party's webpage would be a questionable source for issues related to public affairs.  They adhere to a certain position and advocate that position.  Likewise, The center of American Progress, Huffington Post, The Memory Hole, Institute for Policy Studies, Media Matters for America, Thomaspaine.com (?), AlterNet, Center for American Progress, Think Progress, Truthout are all advocacy groups.  An article with one or two of these questionable sources is ok.  But when the majority of citations are from a consistent political slant, it definately raises concerns about objectivity.  Note, lest you think I am being critical of these sources because they are liberal, I raised the same concerns about conservative think tanks last month on another article.  There ARE better sources out there, this heavily of reliance on advocacy groups and think tanks devalues the content of the article and Wikipedia.Balloonman 19:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS lest you believe the sources cited above aren't extremist sources, think about how people who don't share you political bent will view them? Also, even if they aren't, Wp:rs reads, "In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views."  The very fact that people WILL question the neutrality and objectivity of the cited sources is an indication that they are not the best available.  The policy also states, "Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves."  Many of these cites are questionable in both of those context---and when there is editorial oversight, it is self-admittedly biased.  Personally, I believe that you can find Reliable Sources for most of your claims.  The over reliance on "progressive" sights, however, is a red flag that neutrality doesn't exist in the article.Balloonman 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Some observations Respectfully Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 08:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Any controversial subject will result in objections. That does not prove the sources fail WP:RS. It only shows people tend to dismiss those sources which do not fit their perception of reality: i.e. Intelligent Design. So, claiming any oblection shows sources violate WP:RS seems to be an overly wide interpretation of WP:NPOV.
 * 2) The fact a source might be biased does not mean we cannot use it. Policy explicitly allows it provided we adequately identify said bias.
 * 3) More to the point which of the following do you consider are used in violation of WP policy? CBS News, CNN, Hardball, Center for American Progress, Huffington Post, Washington Post, Carl Levin, The Capital Times, New York Times, Institute for Policy Studies, National Journal, The Christian Science Monitor, BBC News, Institute for Public Accuracy, Ray McGovern, Guardian Unlimited, FindLaw, The Times, Salon, Marjorie Cohn, Moritz School of Law, University of Texas School of Law.
 * 4) Could you also identify which of these you refer to when saying "But when the majority of citations are from a consistent political slant, it definately raises concerns about objectivity." and "Many of these cites are questionable in both of those context---and when there is editorial oversight, it is self-admittedly biased."
 * To tackly you comments point by point:
 * Yes, people will take stances on politics. Which is why WP has a policy about using the best available sources.  This article uses sources that are weighted towards progressive/liberal stances.  I find it interesting that the list of sources that you are attributing to me, do not match the list I had already provided.  If you look at the list I provided, you will see a heavy perponderance of progressive organizations and NOT media outlets.  If your inclusion of Intelligent Design is an attempt to link this criticism to ID, then you failed.
 * Nowhere have I said that you can't use these sources. Again, if you read the criticism, the concern is that when you rely upon organizations which are political in nature and you have multiple references to the same political persuation, THEN you create the appearance of a lack of NPOV.  Also, you write, Policy explicitly allows it provided we adequately identify said bias. Then where are the disclaimers when citing these sources?
 * Please, don't try to insult me. The list that you provided does not match the list I've already provided.  I've already pointed out the cites that people might question and your list included 3 of those sources---all three of which if you click on their link are identified as progressive voices/think tanks.
 * Again, your list and the one I had already provided are drastically different. Please tell me how reliable and neutral/accurate AlterNet, Think Progress, AlterNet, Truthout, and the other organizations I listed are? The fact that people who do not share your political view may question them, is a clear indication that they are not the best sources available.  There are better sources out there.Balloonman 16:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Some clarification Respectfully Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 09:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) You allege I have a certain POV, and as a result this article, and you prove that statement by making a selection of the sources I use.
 * 2) To counter that I cited all the sources I introduced. See above.
 * 3) My position is that some are biased to the left, but the majority are clearly neutral MSM.
 * 4) Since I understand you may view them differently I asked you to identify which of those you considered violated policy, or even which were biased. Apparently that question offended you. I apologise for that. As an aside, since Truthout mostly reprints article from the NYT, WaPo, Der Spiegel, Le Figaro, CSM, et cetera I think it is unreasonable to claim it is a biased source.
 * 5) "The list that you provided does not match the list I've already provided." Not relevant as I explained in the first point since what is important is which sources the article uses, and that the number of biased sources does not carry the article, and we have a majority of MSM.
 * 6) "Then where are the disclaimers when citing these sources?" You will find that the article attributes statements (did the Bush administration invoke 9-11, is the Iraq war a war of aggression, et cetera) to either the individual or the venue in which it was published. As such the reader is able to decide how to interpret that statement. As I said, just as policy prescribes.
 * 7) ID is an example of an article that provokes alot of objections while being more than adequately sourced. As such it invalidates the suggestion that objection itself is evidence of failing WP:RS.


 * Wow, rewriting history now? Lets look at the history of the discussion:  I mention concern about the sources and their neutrality.  I then state my strongest piece of advice is to get better references---too many of the references on this page are of questionable reliability.  Sources DO exists, but citing liberal blogs/watchgroups/thinktanks/etc detracts from those positions.]  You then asked which sources I was challenging. To which I responded listing several sources and explaining when the majority of citations are from a consistent political slant, it definately raises concerns about objectivity.  I went on to state The over reliance on "progressive" sights, however, is a red flag that neutrality doesn't exist in the article. Despite my answering your question, you attempted to shift the argument to a number of sources that are reliable and that I never disputed.  I then pointed out that you were trying to shift the debate and brought the discussion back to the point that the article relies too much on a sources that are weighted towards progressive/liberal stances.  And now for the first time you are attempting to make this personal. You allege I have a certain POV, and as a result this article, and you prove that statement by making a {biased} selection'' of the sources I use.  A couple of problems with that statement.  First, YOU asked me for examples of sources I questions.  I provided them.  Now you are accusing me of making a biased sample.  You then state, "To counter that I cited all the sources I introduced."  Again, This is a strawman argument, because I never alleged that they were.  In fact, this is the first time either of us linked them directly to you.  But if they were in fact all of the sources you introduced where are: "Truthout" and the Human Rights Watch, Alternet, The Progressive or Counterpunch,Media Matters for America,common dreams.org. There are a number of other sources that you introduced that I don't include here.  YOU asked for which sources were weak.  I provided them along with detailed explaination as to what was wrong with having them en masse---not individually.  Not satisfied with the list I gave, at your request, you asked what was wrong with another unrelated list.  I said nothing was wrong with the NEW list, but that list had nothing to do with my comment.  After I pointed out that my list was in response to your inquiry, you then (after the fact) claimed that the second list was all (your emphasis) of the sources you added. My point was, and is, quite simple.  Wikipedia's guidelines are to use the best sources available.  If an article is republished by Truthout, then go to the ORIGINAL source not the secondary source that is presenting only articles that fit its political agenda.  At bare minimum, by citing them, the ARTICLE appears to have been edited by people who are pushing an agenda and get their sources (even mainstream media sources) from secondary outlets with political bias.  By using the other sources, you get rid of this perception.  That has been my point throughout this discussion---not some other issue that you are trying to fabricate.Balloonman 19:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For some reason you feel that my pointing out that the majority of sources used is neutral is so offensive that you are misrepresenting my words and intentions. Clearly, you feel that the entire article depends on mostly biased sources. I asked you to substantiate that claim and your response is to support a frivolous RFC. For whatever reason a statement can use a biased source. I never disagreed with you that some biased sources are used. My entire response to you has been that if you look beyond just one sentence and review the entire article you will find that it mainly uses MSM. Since we appear to have a misunderstanding of what we are saying and you think that an RFC on my person is the appropriate route to solve what is nothing more than two editors having a debate on their difference of opinion, I see no reason to continue this debate. FWIW I totally agree with your suggestion that when possible an article should use neutral sources instead of biased.

As an aside, I advise you to reread the RFC that you signed because IMHO Isaac Pankonin has made incorrect statements. I won't comment there, it is of course nothing more than a content dispute, but if you want to I can clarify for you that every singly statement in the RFC is either false or conspicuously fails to mention relevant facts.Thereby rendering his version incompatible with the historical facts. Thank you. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 12:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes. I encourage you to respond for your sake.  Isaac Pankonin 07:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Weapons of Mass Destruction and Al-Qaeda
'''Does this section give excessive weight? Is it a violation of Wiki policy to state that state that the President "implied" that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9-11 (see )?'''

Involved parties
 * No, we have a myriad of sources stating the administration was invoking 9-11 in an effort to subtly influence support for the invasion of Iraq. Also, the resolution itself clearly states it is aimed at those involved in the attacks, i.e. efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them ergo Iraq was linked to 9-11. The fact is support for the war in Iraq is linked to the still perceived involvement in 9-11. Worse still, to explain the need for a continued surge or even a possible attack on Iran once again people are subtly inserting 9-11 yet again. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Article today mentions it yet again. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with including it for two reasons. First, it's not relevant. It's not asserted in the Iraq Resolution. Some of the sources linked to that statement claim that the American Public was being fooled by the Bush Administration into thinking that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9-11. The implied meaning, and the position that it is used to advance in this article, is that the Resolution was passed under false pretenses. The problem with that position is that the American Public did not vote on the Resolution. Unless there is a source that says members of the US Congress were affected as well, it would be a violation of WP:SYN to include the statement in this article. Second, it's a manipulation of the facts. The President never actually made any claim that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11. None of the sources claim that he said it. One source begins by saying that he has never said it. In fact, he stated clearly and unequivocally that it wasn't true.  As Bulldog123 stated above, "...I'm going to suggest leaving out any commentary on this at all.  The truth is, using terms like 'suggested' or 'implied' all lay themselves to POV, and selecting certain sources to advance a position is giving Undue weight, as someone already said." Isaac Pankonin 03:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Outside Perspective
 * Yes and yes. The tone of this section makes it seem like the President has been indicted, convicted, and sent to prison.  There is vital information missing.  According to WorldNetDaily, the Iraq Survey Group found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" in Iraq.  The Group's two successive leaders both said that Iraq was actively violating UN Resolution 1441 on all 3 types of WMD.[ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 ]  There are also statements that should be removed.  We have been discussing whether or not to include a statement that the President implied that Saddam was linked to 9-11.

Neutral and No: I think that the weight is about appropriate, but the content falls short on discussing the level of implications. I think you'd have to have lived in a cave to not hear major public figures criticizing the administration for implying that Iraq and 9/11 are related; references should be quite easy to come by. As far as I am aware, Bush never stated that 9/11 and Iraq were related (and denied it), but is often criticized for implying it by repeatedly referring to 9/11 in questions and speeches about Iraq and vice versa. If I recall correctly, Cheney has repeatedly made the 9/11-Iraq link, directly, not just through implication. Again, as an outsider, I'm not going to go dig up references for you, but I think it could really use some references from people criticizing the administration for implying the link. -- Rei 17:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes and conditional yes BUT that can be easily rectified. First, despite the title of the page, this article isn't about the Iraq Resolution, but rather a criticism of the Bush Administration. When over 2/3rds of an article is criticism, then that is a sign that undue weight has been applied. Second, the sources cited are pretty weak. Again, there are plenty of solid sources that can tie Bush's and his administration to linking Al Queda and Iraq, but the sources here detract from that fact. This whole section needs to be reworked and shortened.Balloonman 02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Ref 2, the University of Illinois school paper reporting a senior thesis is clearly not a reliable source. A senior thesis???
 * 2) Ref 3---I did a quick search and found more compelling references than these. The last two in particular are pretty weak as they come from biased sources.  Strongly recommend getting BETTER sources that actually quote White House personell!
 * 3) Most of these sources fail WP:RS. Thomaspaine.com/Media Matters have definitive spin/bias.  It doesn't matter if it's a liberal or conservative source, they aren't reliable.

U.N.Charter
Does this section give excessive weight?

Involved Parties
 * Clearly Kofi Anan and others have commented on this. No reason not to mention it. If you feel more information is needed then add it. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The official position of the US and UK governments is that the invasion was authorized under the same resolution that authorized the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, which was suspended under a cease-fire but never terminated.  The same premise was used for Operation Desert Fox in 1998.  This is not mentioned.  Isaac Pankonin 04:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside Perspective


 * No: I think this section is just about right. I wouldn't mind having Desert Fox mentioned as well, though. -- Rei 17:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No: I agree, this section is about right. The wording could be improved and the sources should be enhanced.  Nescio my strongest piece of advice is to get better references---too many of the references on this page are of questionable reliability.  Sources DO exists, but citing liberal blogs/watchgroups/thinktanks/etc detracts from those positions.  For the same reason that I wouldn't accept Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage as a reliable source, the sources here demonstrate a clear POV in their very nature.  Again, reliable sources do exists.Balloonman 02:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Supremacy Clause
If an editor copies content and references from another article on Wikipedia, using a source to support the statement that the US may ignore international treaties and invade Iraq without knowledge of what that source says, is it a violation of WP:SYN??

Involved Parties
 * Do the presented rulings Whitney v. Robertson (from 1888) and Reid v. Covert (from 1957) say that President Bush is not bound by the UN charter and therefore the invasion of Iraq is not illegal? Or is that statement WP:OR, i.e. It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position, in the absence of a source stating that? Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside Perspective
 * No. If the information and the source were valid for the first article, they will be valid anywhere as long as they are relevant.  Isaac Pankonin 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mildly SYN: Obvious statements of fact are not OR, and obvious leaps of logic are not SYN. I don't need a reference to write that the human hand has five digits, and it's not syn to write that a cobra is a venemous snake when a reference says that cobras are venemous and another says that they're snakes. Without a test for obviousness, the very concept of Wikipedia would fall apart. From a fundamental perspective, whether something is SYN depends on whether the person is trying to advance a personal theory or argument with their combining of ideas, and how obvious the combination is; the bar is generally low. In this case, I think that their example is pretty obvious, but they're clearly trying to advance a theory, and if this were such a major issue, I'd expect *some* referencable source to have made it the claim. So, if you can't find a reference, I'd call it SYN and reluctantly take it out.

I'll also add that "some allege" is weasel words. -- Rei 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No Agree with Rei The first sentence is clearly weasel and needs to be reworked and cited. The second half of the section could be improved---it reads very poorly.  I went ahead and tried to improve it.  I don't like the last sentence...Balloonman 02:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Applicability of international law
Is this section relevant?

Involved Parties
 * Relevant. Since the question is was the invasion allowed under international law, any article detailing that no President is free to violate international law is more relevant than mentioning the ~opinion of a WP editor that the Supremacy Clause invalidates international law. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. None of the sources mention the Iraq Resolution.  It's a violation of WP:SYN.  Furthermore, the final sentence, "[T]he President does not have the authority to violate international treaty obligations," contradicts its source in this case.  From the abstract of the Cornell Law Review article: "[T]he President has no authority to violate a treaty obligation if Congress has the authority under Article I to enact legislation superseding that treaty obligation."  If, as this article states, Congress has power to supersede treaties, and they passed a law authorizing the use of force against Iraq, one must conclude that if the President used that authorization, it would be fully legal.  This is exactly the case before us.  Isaac Pankonin 03:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside Perspective

Relevant: I have to agree completely with Nesico on this one. Even if that previous section wasn't SYN, there's a serious issue with chaining arguments and ignoring claims that are being made by well-referenced sources. One is free to counter with references that state that this argument is null and void, but this is clearly OR and SYN to chain the previous line of argument (that the treaty is not applicable) like this. -- Rei 17:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevant, but not in current form I believe the section is valuable, but the current form is unclear and disjointed. It is SYN/OR---and should be deleted unless cleaned up/clarified. Rei's comments above don't make much sense to me, because it reads as if he believes the section is OR/SYN too. I've asked him to clarify his position.Balloonman 03:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rei's response Isaac Pankonin 04:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Applicability" Section
'''I respectfully suggest that the discussion about 'Constitutional priority of International Law and USA Congress' be moved to a new article. There is a lot of material to discuss and reference about what the Constitution says about treaties. If the entire discussion were split off into a new article, it could be referenced by other articles that touch on this Constitutional question, and this article on 'Iraq Resolution' could be much shorter - it would only need a one line reference to the separate article, citing widespread sources on both sides of the debate about the Iraq Resolution's constitutionality.''' VisitorTalk 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In Re: Ipankonin's comment in the RFC section:
 * "one must conclude" is the problem here. OR is not allowed. Which of course is the problem with mentioning the Supremacy Clause. Second the article says the following:
 * It demonstrates that, prior to September 11, 2001, the Geneva Conventions were the supreme Law of the Land under the Supremacy Clause. Moreover, legislation enacted since 9/11 has not altered the domestic status of the Conventions in any material respect. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the sources mention the Iraq Resolution. None of them mention the invasion of Iraq or a war of aggression.  So how is it relevant?  The "one must conclude" part was a tangent, and I apologize for confusing you.  My real argument ends with WP:SYN, and that's all that is needed.  Isaac Pankonin 22:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you have missed the sources used in the UN charter section discussing a war of aggression. Oddly enough they all speak of exactly that. Regarding SYNTH, I have yet to see a source linking the Supremacy Clause to this resolution and the presented court rulings. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you don't dispute that this section violates WP:SYN? Isaac Pankonin 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never disputed the Supremacy Clause-section, and the response to it, violates WP:NOR, but offered to let it slide (see above) in an attempt to prevent the mess we now have. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 10:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost there
The latest revisions are getting us to the finish line. Although I find the sources used, to substantiate the use of the Supremacy Clause to show the UN Charter is invalidated by the resolution, at best weak. For the moment I will leave the letter to the editor of a student publication, but restore the legal sources stating international law cannot be ignored.

To be honest the Supremacy Clause can stay in its current form but technically it fails both WP:RS and WP:OR when used to calim the UN CHarter is invalidated. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 08:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not invalidated. It's ignored.  The whole idea that it's illegal domestically is a fringe argument, and it was hard to find a source that took it seriously.  General Wesley Clark (Dem. Presidential candidate 2004) and a Democratic Congressman, I forget who, both said that it was definately legal but didn't go into details.  I had the same problem with the other argument that was presented here.  You've admitted yourself that it was valid, but nobody wrote about it, so in the interest of syndication I removed it.  You should do the same with the Applicability section.  Isaac Pankonin 23:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, you added a comment based on non-lergal sources. And IMHO they violate RS. They suggest the war is legal and the UN Charter is not binding to the US. Without a proper legal source saying that it is OR. It is reasonable to counter that with the sourced critique. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 04:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you say I broke rules when I was acting in good faith, and then you claim that it's your right to break rules in bad faith as a response? How does a reasonable person respond to that?  Isaac Pankonin 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As I discussed with Isaac Pankonin on his talk page, the Supremacy clause section has some significant problems. The section talks about "self-executing" treaties, which have nothing at all to do with the question of whether or not a violation of the U.N. charter consistutes a violation of U.S. law. The argument that the Iraq war is a violation of U.S. law because it violates our treaty obligations is, in a word, wrong. The Supreme Court has been very clear that where a treaty conflicts with an Act of Congress, the last-in-time wins. Since Congress passed the Authorizing legislation for the war after the ratification by the President of the U.N. treaty, the Authorization wins. Period. We have held "that an Act of Congress . . . is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null." Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1148, 77 S. Ct. 1222 (1957) (plurality opinion); see also Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194, 31 L. Ed. 386, 8 S. Ct. 456 (1888) (holding that if a treaty and a federal statute conflict, "the one last in date will control the other"). Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998)

As such, I think the section ought to be removed.

The other section in dispute, U.S. Law vs. International Law, is pointless. To point out that international law does not permit a country to ignore its treaty obligations, and then have a paragraph of unrelated sources, makes very little sense. What you're essentially saying is that "according to international law you cant ignore international law." You really need a whole paragraph to say that??? In my opinion, both sections should go. Cheers, JCO312 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I support removing both sections. Isaac Pankonin 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I recall that was exactly what I suggested 10 years ago (see above) when Isaac Pankonin insisted the Supremacy thingy needed to remain while selectively deleting the other section. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagreed with your reasons for deleting or altering the Supremacy section, and I don't recall you offering to delete both sections. You offered to keep both sections, but I couldn't accept that.  Now, don't go adding the Supremacy argument to the UN Charter section like the way it was before I came here.  The reason we're deleting it is because it's a fringe argument.  It really has nothing to do with sources.  This is why I wanted to keep the section, to keep the argument and counter-argument so nobody comes in and thinks he should add the argument again.  I never saw a good reason to keep your section.  Isaac Pankonin 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To be accurate: you advanced sections on a premise you could not substantiate through WP:RS. As such I accepted that as it sounded, and still does, reasonable. You then insisted on RS invoking WP:OR, which is your right, to delete sections I introduced. Only then did I respond by pointing out that the section you wished to add violated OR. At no point in time did you provide a source substantiating your interpretation. That is what I objected to. Nothing more, nothing less. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 08:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I had some harsh words for you before on this talk page, and I apologize (I never called you a troll however). On the other hand, I was the one that advanced the dispute resolution process each time.  I went to that library on my day off to look at the book you disputed, and I removed material when I knew it couldn't be substantiated.


 * I provided a source. You did not.  You think it didn't pass the RS guideline.  I disagree.  We never got a third opinion on whether or not the source was valid.  If we did, and the third opinion disagreed with me, chances are I would have agreed to remove it.  I attempted to abide by policy.  You insisted on 1) ignoring policy violations for your own contributions as long as the Supremacy section was in the article and 2) applying a stricter definition of a reliable source than WP:RS by requiring a "proper legal source".  You, Balloonman, Rei, and I all said the first sentence in your section was OR.  You're the only one that said my source was bad.


 * You keep saying it was reasonable. Is it reasonable to ignore standards to advance an agenda?  You are not the keeper of the truth.  Isaac Pankonin 01:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The question remains, at what point in time did the Supremacy section not advance the premise the US is free, under international law, to ignore the UN Charter? Clearly, that statement could not, and still cannot, be substantiated with WP:RS. Never did I object to mentioning that under US law it may be possible that torture, genocide, rape, murder, burglary, et cetera, is entirely legal. However, our dispute resulted from you disagreeing with my view that whatever local law may say countries are still bound by international law. Can international law be enforced? That question is irrelevant to the observation that violating international law still constitutes a crime, and when we are talking about the UN Charter it may even be a war crime. Again, liable or not under international law I agree that local law (US law) may ignore international law. Whether such an individual is free to enter other countries without the risk of being arrested, and prosecuted by an international court of law, is of course the point I am trying to make, i.e. Pinochet, Mladic, et cetera. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 11:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of the UN Charter section
I came back and looked at this article after some time away, and in my opinion, the UN Charter section shouldn't be in the article at all. While it was in the article, the Supremacy Clause section provided the link between the invasion, the UN Charter, and US domestic law. But since we removed that section, I don't see how the UN Charter section is relevant anymore. Isaac Pankonin 09:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the US is bound by the UN Charter, as such this resolution promising to wage war should adhere to the rules set out in that Charter. Discussing that legal experts feel the war violates the Charter is not only appropriate, it is highly relevant as this resolution appears to contradict a signed international treaty: the UN Charter. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 08:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This resolution didn't violate the Charter. The purported violation came with the invasion 5 months later.  I have not seen anybody put forward the opinion that the resolution itself was a violation.  Besides, the international law part is addressed in several other articles, all dealing with the invasion itself.  Isaac Pankonin 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You will find that hiring a hitman does not violate the prohibition on murder, i.e. you have not killed anybody. Nevertheless, courts will probably rule that planning to violate that law may itself be a violation of the law. As such this resolution clearly outlines the intend to violate the UN Charter (assuming for a moment the illegal war rationale is correct) and may be seen as a crime as well. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 09:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"resolution promising to wage war" Did you even read the resolution? It doesn't promise war, it authorizes war. And I have yet to see a solid case that the US is obligated to get UN authorization.Heqwm (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the UN Charter and its prohibition on any war not out of self-defense or sanctioned by the UN. Even the US is bound by the UN Charter, see the sources in this article. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 07:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a solid case there, either.Heqwm (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Added disambiguation page for "Authorization for Use of Military Force", probably did not do it right
I just went through and cleaned up the pages so that: I doubt the resulting layout will be controversial since I found many references to both the resolutions as "AUMF" or "Authorization for Use of Military Force" and the two are related enough in time, presumed goal, administration given authorization etc. that they may be confused. However, after having done so I realized there is most likely a policy regarding changes of this level (moving content) that might supercede the "be bold" idea. I apologize for any confusion or for overstepping bounds of polite editing and will take the time to learn such policies, but for the moment I will leave the articles the way they are (i.e. leaving in my edits). If you do revert, please take a moment and give me any suggestions where to find the info on how to properly approach this kind of situation and, more importantly, please note that reverting one page in the above list may invalidate (but not break) the links in the other pages. I believe the only lasting problem anyone might have with the way I did this is the discussion pages no longer being in the right place, so I added links to them indicating that. Of course there could be problems I missed. Thanks --Fitzhugh 19:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "AUMF" redirects to "Authorization for Use of Military Force"
 * "Authorization for Use of Military Force is a disambiguation page linking to:
 * "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" and
 * "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002", which redirects here
 * These should go at the bottom in the "See also" section. See WP:HAT.  I. Pankonin (t/c) 02:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I found the Distinguish hatnote under the WP:HAT link you suggested, and that is what I was really aiming for. It is also in the "See also" section as you suggest. Thank you! --Fitzhugh 09:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Weapons of Mass Destruction Capability
Nescio has repeatedly restored unsourced and false statements. We had a discussion of this on my talk page, and the following is copied from there:

"To state that is not correct is contradicting sourced material." From the context, it appears that youre trying to contradict me, but I don't see how your comment advances that goal. That the Resolution did not explicitly assert either claim absolutely is sourced; one need only look at the Resolution to see that. That critics have not found a claim which is clearly false is a negative claim; do you seriously expect me to prove it? What else is there? That critics have claimed the war is based on lies? You aren't seriously disputing that, are you? So what, exactly, are you claiming is "unsourced and incorrect"? Nice how anything that doesn't fit with your radical leftism is a "highly biased slant". As I have said, the Resolution never claimed that there was a working relationship between SH and AQ. If you want to claim that the Resolution implied false statements, fine. But anyone who claims that there is a single statement in the Resolution which is an outright lie is simply being dishonest. Now, the Resolution cites Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capability. It does not cite Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, YOUR edit is inaccurate and unsourced. Since you have been informed of the error, and yet you continue to make a claim that you know is false, your editing is clearly vandalism, and if you continue to remove the word "capability", I will seek administrative action. There is simply no room for disagreement on the Contents section. When discussing what a document says, we should quote what it actually says, rather than editing it for political convenience. In the Weapons of Mass Destruction and Al-Qaeda section, you again are restoring unsourced statements. The "cite" for the claim that WMD and AQ were the main reasons is simply an article saying that there were 27 rationales. It doesn't actually say what any of those rationales are, let alone make any determinations as to which arguments were "principal". It's quite the pot calling the kettle black when you insist on including completely unsourced claims, yet refuse to allow me to present any opposing views on the basis that it's "highly biased".

He replied "Will continue discussion on the page", but I don't see any response here.Heqwm (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Heqwm, here's how it stands. I'm on your side.  I would love to see everything you've put in the article stay in the article.  However, the sentence Despite claiming that the war was based on lies, critics have yet to find a single claim in the Resolution which is clearly false. needs a source.  You need to find somewhere that it has been written before, and your source has to pass the WP:RS guideline.


 * I think it's relevant to interject at this admittedly late date that it is not up to anyone to provide a source to prove there are no lies or false claims in the joint resolution, but for critics to prove there are lies. We keep mistaking claims that the media tells us the white house made in speeches with the actual text of the joint resolution, which anyone can read for themselves. (psst: no lies there- read it!)I will admit you are right it does not conform to wiki guidelines, which strangely do not allow us to include an obvious fact anyone could see for themselves in a minute's review. Batvette (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no getting around working with Nescio on this article. He's not going away, and he's not going to change.  Pointing fingers and calling him a liberal won't work.  Trust me.  I've tried it.  As painful as it is, you are going to have to come to a consensus with him on the wording of the article.  Mass deletions won't work.  The Weapons of Mass Destruction section is the result of months of debate (you should have seen it before!).  By all means, if you find something that is unsourced, correct it, but don't start deleting everything.  And most of all, please take small steps.  You're trying to correct everything in the article.  If you could find the most important thing to you that's wrong and let us focus on that, we can get the ball rolling.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My edit consisted solely of deleting unsourced claims. A cite is a source that acutally supports the claim, not some random site on the internet.Heqwm (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After looking at all the sources cited for the first sentence, I have removed the word "principal", because it's unsupported. None of the sources actually say that these arguments were more important than any other.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The "weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda" section is filled with irrelevant material which belongs on the "legitimacy of the Iraq war" if anywhere, I'm going to be a sport about it and wait a week or so before I alter it. To wit: "A 2007 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, declassified and released at the request of Senator Carl M. Levin (D-Mich), asserted that the claims of an operational working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, as put forth by a key Pentagon office in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, were based on dubious or unconfirmed reports [9]. President Bush has, since the invasion of Iraq, explicitly stated that that country was not involved in 9-11, which has also been concluded by subsequent reports,[10] and any alleged contacts with al-Qaeda were in areas outside of Saddam Hussein's control. Also, the day before she voted on the resolution, Senator Clinton said during a speech on the Senate floor that there was no dispute that Hussein was not involved in the September 11th attacks.[11] Nevertheless, BBC News, The Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Institute for Public Accuracy, and Media Matters for America contend that members of the administration repeatedly over the years made suggestive statements with the implied message there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks.[12]"

An operational working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda was never an allegation made in the joint resolution. Anything "put forward by a key Pentagon office" to the media or elsewhere, whether stated or implied (joke) also is wholly irrelevant to the document covered in this page. Thus any beliefs of Media Matters (a clearly partisan attack source, read their about us page) or other critics also does not belong here. If it's in the joint resolution and they want to pick it apart them fine.Additionally there is a lot of bad sourcing in there, checking reference #17 reveals an op-ed commentary from the NY times filled with weasel words and false claims, but used as reference to claim fact. Bogus alarms going off. And this line: "any alleged contacts with al-Qaeda were in areas outside of Saddam Hussein's control." used as a rebuttal to what JR claim, please? That members of Al Qaeda were present in Iraq? That's all the JR claims, don't imply it makes a deeper claim just so you can have something to cast aspersion upon. Batvette (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)