Talk:Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush/Archive 2

RFC started on Merecat
In light of recent events on this page (not discussing disputed edits, edit warring and making personal attacks; for details see above!) this Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. I trust should anyone want to contribute, they will respond as an objective bystander. If you do not want to comment that's OK. Sincerely Nomen Nescio 18:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nescio, you may find that your hard-headedness in dealing with Merecat will backfire on you. You have drawn so much attention to this lop-sided page that once this page is unprotected there are going to be scores of editors (that are way may neutral than you) keeping an eye on this page and editing out Kevin's and your POV and bad sources.--WilliamThweatt 22:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * William, while I might want to say I agree with you, based on my experience here so far, I would suggest you speak only to the merits of Nescio's edits, not him personally. Based on what I've experienced, as it stands now, I see no possible upside in cultivating a personal dynamic with Nescio. Merecat 00:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First I object to you misrepresenting the facts. Just as with you I have given Merecat ample opportunity to debate and find consensus. Since he refused, unlike you, to simply exchange ideas and suggestions I find his form of editting not helping. Second, although I must misunderstand, but I am inclined to interpret "there are going to be scores of editors (that are way may neutral than you) keeping an eye on this page and editing out Kevin's and your POV and bad sources." as a threat. At least it does not suggest willingness to resolve any differences through discussion. [[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what constitutes a "threat", but, inasmuch as a "threat" is possible on a harmless website such as this, Nescio, you may rest assured that my comment was not, in any way, intended to be threatening. Additionally, it wasn't suggestive of anything regarding willingness on my part, merely that you have drawn others of a like mind with Merecat to this article that will serve to balance your POV.  As I have been careful to state, you and I have disagreed before and we were able to work things out in all such cases.  As I have also been careful to point out, I respect that and look forward to working with you again.  You balance my POV and contribute things that I have not been exposed to.  It is not you personally that I disagree with, it is your POV and your tactics.  If you feel I have misrepresented the facts, please be specific and I will address it or correct it as warranted.


 * I am intellectually honest enough to recognize that no amount of debate will change our respective biases and POV and therefore realize that compromise is the only option, as long as the result is compliant with WP Policies and Guidelines and sufficiently NPOV. By compromise I mean, in some cases, I am willing to bend in regards to an opposing POV being inserted into an article as long as I am allowed to point out within the article that it is POV, thereby neutralizing the POV.  So by including all POV's, the article would be technically pan-POV, not NPOV, but the POVs present in the article would have been neutralized.  Although, I don't presume to speak for Merecat, he seems to be more of a purist in insisting that absolutely no POV be included.  (I am of the mind that that is impossible in controversial articles such as this).  As such, you and Merecat will never agree, not even to disagree.


 * My main argument with your tactics is that you cite so many left-wing sites as fact. If a letter is written for example, cite the letter itself, not a reprint of the letter on a wacko, left-wing site that, when a reader clicks through, also assaults him with their propoganda and their individual interpretation of the letter.  However I have resigned myself to the fact that two can play that game (probably a result of years in politics).  My goal is to write the best article possible considering the circumstances, which doesn't always mean that it will be the best article possible.  It seems Merecat is unwilling to play that game, which is his right.  He has made arguments and asserted justifications but you have not agreed that his point are valid and simply reverted his edits.  And he has done the same to you.  I wish I had a simple solution but I can't even see a complicated one.  In this case I tend to agree with Merecat that this article is very POV, some obvious, some very subtle.  I freely admit that I have biases but I try not to let my biases show through in my editing and try even harder not to advance an agenda, that's all we ask of you.--WilliamThweatt 02:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

First, I only felt that saying "there are going to be scores of editors (that are way may neutral than you) keeping an eye on this page and editing out Kevin's and your POV and bad sources," did not sound like an invitation to resolve the dispute. Having said that I also find it hard to understand why inserting POV and balancing it with another POV is impossible. As you stated yourself, this subject hardly is open for factual sources. Impeachment by definition is political, so any comment will also be political. To disallow anything like that would mean we should delete the articles on Religion, Scientology, Alien abduction, et cetera. Whereas I am trying to insert all relevant information, mine and Merecat's -which is what NPOV stands for- Merecat simply deletes everything he objects to. I find it unsettling that he is considered a good faith editor and I simply a partisan fanatic. Nomen Nescio 14:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Blanco statement in article
The statement from the article:
 * The administration, and its supporters, contend that the principal responsibility lies with the local authorities.[47] Therefore any accusation of inadequate handling of the disaster should be addressed at the Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco.[48]

I think Merecat is right, on this point. Neither source works for the second sentence. The Media Matters one is close, but not really correct. It states that NEWSWEEK accused Blanco (A further link from that source). At the time of the first source, Brown was no longer part of the Administration, and therefore can't speak on the behalf of it. Is there perhaps a better source for these statements? If not, I support removal. Thoughts? -- LV (Dark Mark)  21:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The administration, and its supporters, does not preclude the possibility of statements made by people that are not part of the administration.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 02:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But what I'm asking is for examples of the Administration saying these things about Blanco. Or else, shouldn't the sentence read, "Supporters of the administration contend..."? Also, Brown has been highly, highly critical of Michael Chertoff, and his role in the Katrina response, so I don't know for sure I would consider him a "supporter" per se. -- LV (Dark Mark)  19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Geneva Conventions section doesn't match source material
The Geneva Conventions text doesn't conform with its cited sources. Specifically, the section states:
 * Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration advocated that suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members would be designated as unlawful combatants. They suggested that, as such, they were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. To address the mandatory review by a "competent tribunal" as defined by article five of the Third Geneva Convention, Combatant Status Review Tribunals were established. The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations and Joanne Mariner from FindLaw have dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law.[25]


 * The Council on Foriegn Relations | discussion summary cited as support for this paragraph does not establish that the CFR has "dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law."
 * Nothing in that summary says that the CFR has dismissed the administration's claims that unlawful combatants are not subject to POW protection under the terms of the Geneva convention, or that the CFR has dismissed the administration's claim that it is entitled to determine whether combatants were unlawful by use of military tribunals.
 * Rather, the article indicates that the CFR held a roundtable at which some people agreed with those statements and some people disagreed. For instance, the summary states "While no discussant challenged the right of the United States to detain enemy combatants, some questioned the administration’s decision to deprive them of POW status. The discussants argued that granting POW status would not restrain the government’s ability to gather intelligence and that depriving detainees of that status comes at a great cost to the government and international law in terms of reciprocity, public opinion and international norms."  No one appears to dispute the legal analysis; rather "some" participants in the roundtable argued that it would be smarter policy to grant POW status even to unlawful combatants.  The text therefore isn't a fair summary of the opinion, even if the opinions of "some" qualify as reliable sources.

TheronJ 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Similarly, the text doesn't conform to the ABA | recommendation cited as support.
 * The recommendation isn't an ABA finding, it's a recommendation from an ABA subcommittee that the ABA adopt the enclosed materials as policy. Without a showing that the ABA has adopted the recommendation, it's not accurate to ascribe the statements to the "ABA" as a whole.
 * The recommendation itself, even if it were adopted by the ABA, does not establish that the ABA "dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law." To the contrary, page 4 of the recommendation specifically states that unlawful combatant status is compatible with the Geneva Convention and US law.
 * Among other things, page 4 states "The term “enemy combatant” actually encompasses two previously-recognized classes of detainees during wartime: lawful and unlawful combatants. Each is subject to capture and detention for the duration of a conflict. “Lawful combatants,” or prisoners of war, are entitled to the substantive and procedural protections set forth in the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, . . . . “Unlawful combatants” do not receive these protections, and may additionally be “subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.” Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 31 (1942)."
 * The ABA subcommittee recommendation therefore establishes the exact opposite of the sentence for which it is offered in support.


 * GC 3 or 4? Kevin Baastalk 23:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank TheronJ for specifically pointing out what needs improvement. His clarification finally makes it possible to start the process of finding compromise and consensus. Nomen Nescio 01:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct that it should be made clear it was not the entire ABA and CFR, this can be amended don't you think? Would that suffice?
 * Regarding "unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law" in which the administration holds that this qualification means no due legal proces, or GC protection:
 * ABA The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; <.....> Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin,11 that right could hardly be denied to U. S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all. page 4
 * ABA Neither the Joint Resolution authorizing the use of force nor any laws enacted in response to the terrorist attacks address or expressly authorize the detention of United States citizens as “enemy combatants.” page 5.
 * ABA International agreements and principles recognized by the United States also support the fundamental importance of recognizing a detainee’s right to judicial review and access to counsel. They include Articles 8 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights16 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 17 which attempt to protect individuals from arbitrary detention, and guarantee a meaningful review of a detainee’s status. page 6
 * CFR While no discussant challenged the right of the United States to detain enemy combatants, some questioned the administration’s decision to deprive them of POW status.
 * CFR While most discussants remain confident that the United States is treating current detainees humanely, several expressed concern that the administration’s approach erodes an international norm.
 * CFR Other discussants disagreed, arguing that the President’s decision to designate unlawful combatants outside the protection of the Conventions because of how they fought arbitrarily disposed of an entire body of carefully-crafted international law.

Thanks, Nomen - I suspect that the section can be expanded so that it accurately summarizes who says what. I'd be happy to work on it with you when the page is unlocked. (One caveat, though - since this is about impeachment, let's make sure that the criticisms of GWB match up with the reasons someone wants to impeach him - presumably, he can get criticized for a lot of stuff that isn't on anyone's impeachment wishlist). Thanks, TheronJ 01:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You may be interested to see this
 * Indefinite confinement of a so-called "enemy combatant" without charge in a military brig violates the Constitution even in wartime.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 15:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

rigged elections
as long as we are at it, the rigged election scandal is rediculously easy to prove. Prometheuspan 23:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/impeachbush/?yguid=176032312 http://groups.msn.com/votefraudusa

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheuspan (talk • contribs)
 * Yahoo Group
 * Notes from the meeting on January 24th

Other Links
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheuspan (talk • contribs)
 * http://www.votescam.com/
 * http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/voting.html
 * http://www.jfkmontreal.com/bush_votescam.htm
 * http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1060
 * http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=182&row=2
 * http://www.votefraud.org/
 * http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue8/Diane_Perlman.cfm
 * http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE412A.html
 * http://revspork.blogs.com/revspork/2004/10/more_fun_with_e.html
 * http://www.oilempire.us/stolenelection2004.html
 * http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
 * http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/04votefraud.html
 * http://voteraction.org/

Problems with multiple Reference links per cited fact
Please see Killian documents for what would appear to be a compromise method of "Reference links". In that article, each number at the bottom of the page, has one link/citation correlating to it. In contrast, with this article (as has been a bone of contention here), some of the Reference numbers at the bottom of the page have 3, 4, 6 or more links aggregated under them. Thatcher131 has done excellent work at Killian documents. I feel we should follow the lead of that article and limit each Reference number to one link/citation. This compromise would give Nescio the " " system of links he prefers and myself the simplicity and clarity which I want for this article.

Merecat 03:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the difference between having five cites at the end of a sentence, or one cite with five references?[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 03:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

--- Benefits of one cite per reference, Killian documents style:


 * 1) Simplicity
 * 2) Clarity
 * 3) Easier to edit
 * 4) Less confusion to readers and editors who want to corroborate citations
 * 5) Less risk of "POV stuffing"

Merecat 03:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You miss my point. All the references cover one sentence. Therefore if we implement your suggestion there would still be multiple cites to that sentence. In stead of one "cite" it would have changed in to multiple "cites" following that sentence. Again what is the difference? Nomen Nescio 03:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC) - Your question does not speak to my suggestion, to wit: I am suggesting we adopt a Killian documents style reference system. But to answer your question, Killian documents, Rachel Corrie, John Kerry, George W. Bush and other controversial articles get along just fine without 5 links at the end of a sentence. Are you saying you think that 5 links to confirm a single point is a good idea? Then why stop at 5? Why not 35? Suffice it to say, we can get along just fine with one corroborating link per asserted point and I am reasonably sure that somehwere on this wiki, there is a manual of style which suggests just that. Merecat 03:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC) -

In light of our dispute, and more than possible expecting renewed dispute by others in the future, I would think that, let's say three references to support a claim is better than one.

Further, it already has a Killian style. The only difference is that I incorporate multiple links following a sentence into one.

But more importantly, let's discuss the article and what you believe needs ammending before we look at what type of reference we use. I would think that is the least of the problems on this article. Nomen Nescio 03:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat requests that Nescio discuss the "links issue" with him
My disagreement with Nescio regarding links is not a homogenized disagreement. I am fully able to make the distinction between quality and quantity of links. I do not agree that we should agree on "3" links to corroborate each point. Rather, what I think we should each do as editors is cite each assertion to a reliable source, stopping with the best link we find. If and only if that link becomes a bone of contention as not being valid or acceptable for some reason, then we can get a replacement link. For Nescio to say we have disagreed about this is not correct. That's because Nescio has not yet yielded on the quantity issue, so he and I have not yet spent any dialog on the quality issue. I ask that Nescio please address both aspects individually and talk with me about that. Also, my concerns about the links issue is one of my major concerns with this article. I want to discuss it now. Nescio, are you refusing to discuss the links issue? Merecat 04:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And Nescio, I see from this that you are more focused on piling on with the finger pointing, than talking about the links issue - or am I mistaken? If not, please tell me yes or no, you willing to discuss the links issue with me? Merecat 04:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Setting the record straight is allowed. Beyond that, I still feel reference style is not what we should be discussing at this point. If you show what sentence you feel needs improving, the used cites are part of that discussion. What sentence needs rewriting and why?[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 04:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, I am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog here at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready. Merecat 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio has refused Merecat's offer to discuss the "links issue"
Let the record show that Nescio has this evening declined my offer to discuss with me the "links issue" as outlined by my edits:
 * 1) here,
 * 2) here,
 * 3) here,
 * 4) here,
 * 5) and here

Merecat 04:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied from RFC to here
(formatting on postings below modified for clarity of attribution - text is verbatim Merecat 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Regarding the article itself, can you imagine someone writing Crimes of the Jews, citing extensively from anti-semitic sources? Even if every allegation was accompanied by a denial, it would still be a POV article. Rationales doesn't even give Bush that much courtesy. For example, the section NSA warrantless surveillance controversy gives 3 paragraphs to anti-Bush views and one sentence to the adminstration argument, despite the much more in depth and balanced treatment at the main article NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. You don't mention that Clinton and Carter authorized warrantless searches, for example.  Saying that the NSA issue is a rationale for impeachment implies that the facts are settled (they aren't), that the legal challenges have been answered (they aren't), and that Congress views upholding the letter of the FISA law is more important than protecting national security (it hasn't said any such thing).  Regarding Extraordinary rendition, the article does not say that rendition was started by Clinton. Regarding interrogation, you state the  adminstration memos discussion interrogation methods are referred to as the "torture memos".  The reference does not call them that, making it a problematic POV statement, and to call coercive interrogation "torture" is to adopt a particular POV that is not grounded in any court decision as of yet. And so on.  It would be better not to characterize these issues at all in your article rather than giving biased and incomplete versions. Thatcher131 16:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If on the other hand you followed my model, the movement article could say, "Representative John Conyers called for an investigation into possible grounds for impeachment, citing the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, and the misuse of executive power (see Unitary executive theory)." Readers would know who was calling for impeachment, and could link to the in-depth article for more information. Thatcher131 16:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the problem, but my idea to fix it is a little different. I think the article is missing (1) a fair summary of the grounds and procedure for impeachment, (2) a fair summary of the likelihood of Congress actually initiating impeachment proceedings, and (3) for each topic, an accurate assessment of legal consensus on whether the topic supports impeachment. I wouldn't call it so much crimes of the jews as Arguments against evolution. I think we should make an effort to summarize the issues accurately and without POV, and will see what we can do when the ban is lifted. TheronJ 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied from RFC page 2
(this section copied from RFC page - it's a the results of a thread from a question I asked Nescio, but to which, Kevin Baas replied. You can see the entire dialog on the RFC talke page. I am copying this here, as this is now a dialog with Kevin, because Nescio did not respond) ---
 * Nescio believes, as do I, that provided all the information in there has at least one good citation, things like POV wording, information that should be in but isn't, misrepresentation, or just poor wording, are more pressing issues than the style of the links. Inaccuracies in the text is more important than whether it has too many citations or not.  Nescio is more concerned with the body of the text and would like to discuss the body.  I believe this is appropriate because that is what people are going to read. I beleive that your focus is petty and so is your insistence, and that it is impeding progress on the article; i.e., it is obstructive.  You know how much better the article would be by now if we would have all been working together on improving the content, piece by piece? I also feel that reference style is not what we should be discussing at this point.  I hope I have stated the case clearly.  Comprimise does not mean always giving in to, even when you strongly disagree, one user who's trying obstinately to direct the article development as well as the discussion.  Kevin Baastalk 20:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Kevin are you answering here for Nescio? How do you even know what Nescio believes? Has he told you? Perhaps he might also want to tell the rest of us. That said, since it seems you talk more to Nescio than he talks to the rest of us, please ask him to respond to this: Nescio, I (Merecat) am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog here at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready. Merecat 21:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, he has told me. He has also told you.  I am reiterating and clarifying because I understood him. Kevin Baastalk 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering for Nescio again. When you talk to him next, please remind him that I am still waiting for his personal reply to the inquiry I made to him. Nescio is fond of saying that I won't discuss things with him. But, when I offer to, he (and you) tell me that you don't want to talk about the subject I am raising, because "[Merecat's] focus is petty" and also because your position is: "I also feel that reference style is not what we should be discussing at this point". So then, let's just be clear: Yyou and Nescio want dialog, but you will only agree to discuss those aspects of the article which you want to discuss, not any of the ones I wish to discuss, is that correct? Then again, since I could be misunderstanding you, and since nNEscio talks to you, but does not reply to my inquiry, please remind him again that I am asking for his reply to this: Nescio, I (Merecat) am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog here at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready.

Thanks. Merecat 21:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

missing obvious rationale
the most obvious missing rationale for impeachment is that Bush isn't the legal president of the USA in the first place. He isn't and never was. The elections were rigged, and are thus legally invalid.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheuspan (talk • contribs)
 * http://www.votescam.com/
 * http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/voting.html
 * http://www.jfkmontreal.com/bush_votescam.htm
 * http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1060
 * http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=182&row=2
 * http://www.votefraud.org/
 * http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue8/Diane_Perlman.cfm
 * http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE412A.html
 * http://revspork.blogs.com/revspork/2004/10/more_fun_with_e.html
 * http://www.oilempire.us/stolenelection2004.html
 * http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
 * http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/04votefraud.html
 * http://voteraction.org/

Oh good grief. Thatcher131 22:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. --Mhking 23:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There were two motions to address the irregularities, Moss v. Bush, and the congressional challenge. The congressional challenge was not intended to overturn the election, and Moss v. Bush was delayed by the judge beyond the deadline. So although there are serious questions about how the majority of voters in ohio who got out to vote on nov. 2 intended to vote for on nov. 2, there is no precedent in america for an impeaching a president for not being elected (though prior presidential elections have been rigged), and there are otherwise no actionable remedies. Kevin Baastalk 01:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, let me remind you that Bush was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the USSC. That seems to me to be a reasonably strong affirmation that he did win the election. Please stop paying heed to WP:OR theories here. We have enough trouble already dealing with run-of-the-mill anti-Bush contentions. Merecat 06:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My brilliant solution
...he said modestly. I think the problem, boiled down to its simplest, is that it is very hard to write a verifiable neutral article on a controversial topic when all the sources are partisan. I'm sure a Clinton impeachment article would be much easier to write today than in the middle of events, too. You're arguing over whether a particular group is partisan and how to interpret the Geneva Convention and complicated court rulings. That's not what WP editors should be doing -- we should be reporting things that have already been decided.

I propose rewriting the article not as a neutral account of a topic (impeachment), but as a balanced account of a partisan debate. Acknowledge that there are two sides and present both sides fairly. Here is an example of what I mean.

NSA warrantless surveillance
 * US Representative Adam Ant said in speech on the floor of the House that President Bush should be investigated for possible impeachment for authorizing the interception of US citizens' electronic communication without warrants. Syndicated columnist Bill Baker and Democratic party official Chatty Cathy have endorsed this view. An analysis produced by the American Liberal Caucus show blah blah blah etc etc etc...therefore the warrantless searches violate the 5th amendment of the Constitution, and by authorizing the searches President Bush has violated the Constitution and committed an impeachable offense.


 * Administration representatives including Diane Dale, Earl Egglund and Frank Fosdeck counter that the power to conduct foreign surveillance is granted to the President by the Constitution and can not be revoked or limited by an act of the legislative branch. Legal analysts including Judge George Gont and former attorneys general Hal Hamburg (Reagan administration) and Ida Inkvist (Clinton administration) concur, although this is disputed by former Justice Department lawyer Jack Jones.  President Bush said in a press conference, "If you're talking to your grandmother, we aren't interested. If you're talking to Al Queda, we should probably be listening."  Republican columnist Kam Klink points out that Presidents Carter, Reagan and Clinton also authorized warrantless searches, and Clinton supported the controversial CIA Eschelon program.


 * For further information see NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

The point here is to present a fair and balanced account of a highly partisan debate. Don't get too caught up in the underlying "truth" of the situation (regarding WMD or the NSA or who was responsible for the Katrina response); just report what other people said. Don't try to analyse "the truth" yourself. Don't get bogged down in nitpicking sources. If Mother Jones publishes an editorial about impeachment, don't worry that it's a partisan source, just balance it with an editorial from National Review. Also, don't get too in depth on any one issue; the chances are the specific wikipedia article will be more comprehensive and up to date. Summarize the main points with special attention to how it is relevant to impeachment (as opposed to a general recitation of Bush controversies) and link to the main article. I also agree with Theron that a brief introduction to how impeachment works would be of benefit.

It will be necessary to come up with some agreement on whose arguments may be quoted. Elected officials, current and retired government officials yes, bloggers probably no, prominent public gadflies maybe, for example. You don't want to turn wikipedia into the DU or Free Republic. Some discrimination and discretion will be needed. Also, don't get too caught up in analyzing the "truth" of people's arguments. If someone has made an argument based on bad facts, don't fight about it, just find someone who made a better argument. Thatcher131 22:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments?

@ 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC) - Merecat is still waiting for Nescio's response
Nescio, I am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog here at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready. Merecat 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Patience. No need to have the appearance of trolling. I'm sure he'll get to responding on his own time. It's not uncommon for someone to not respond for several days, and to keep saying "huh, what, no answer?" gives the appearance of you goading egging (in honor of Easter ;-)) him on into a fight. Give him some time. -- LV (Dark Mark)  19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But do take notice that Nescio is making edits today - see his contributions. Merecat 19:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter... sometimes people will work on other stuff before getting back to a particular topic. No need to repeat the same thing over, and over, and over... You've now posted this like 12 times. I'm sure he'll see it eventually and respond when he feels ready. Until then, I recommend just sitting tight and doing other things as well. If after a few days, you still don't have an answer, then gently nudge him with a "hey, have you seen this?" type statement. No need to post "Hey look at me. I offered a compromise but that dude still hasn't answered" on a couple of general talk pages. Take it to him directly. No need to lengthen your phylacteries for all to see. -- LV  (Dark Mark)  19:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I posted it multiple times because Nescio has multiple times said that I won't debate and that I don't discuss. However, by virtue of my express invitation, it's clear that I am available and am inviting him. At this point, I intend to remind this page of that once a day. After a week or so, if Nescio still refuses my invitation, I would say that he's waived his opportunity to object to me editing for quality and quantity of links. Same goes for Kevin Baas as I have invted him several times as well (though less times than Nescio). Merecat 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)