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

= MIRROR of ARTICLE = The purpose of this mirror is to use the mirror as reference so that arguments regarding the article can be shown in direct relevance to where they are in the article. For instance, merecats now archived by me and retrieved out of archival ad hominem attacks and straw man attacks for most of a page really only come down to a single reference or two. In the mirror, Merecat could be helpful by simply putting an interuption in the mirror at the reference in question and writing something to the effect of "I object to this reference being cited due to the inherant bias of the site." or ETC. That way, instead of obstructionist noise, we could actually work on the article. Objections and problems could be duly noted, and in some cases, duly ignored. This is a much saner way of going about working on the article than pandering to Obstructionist nitpicking and a zillion straw men and ad hominem digressions. Prometheuspan 18:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Proponents of the impeachment of current President of the United States, George W. Bush, assert that one or more of President Bush's actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.

This article presents a list of suggested rationales to impeach Bush, which have been offered by commentators, legal analysts, Democrat politicians and others. The points raised in this article are not to be viewed as a monolithic list, but as an assembly of discrete rationales which favour impeaching Bush that have been gathered from multiple sources. For example, The Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil rights legal advocacy non-profit organization based in New York, discusses some arguments in Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush. The article as written here does not follow the basic idea of the change as put forth i believe by tweather<?> Theres no defense echo. A defense echo might look something like this; -- 	 Opponents of the Movement to impeach argue that the Bush Administration is doing what it has to do in a modern Era of Terrorist warfare, in order to protect the country. They further assert that the movement to impeach is a partisan and politically motivated effort. ETC. Prometheuspan 03:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC) -

Suggested reasons to impeach
Several individuals and organisations have alleged that President Bush has been guilty of transgressions that amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors." Some voices in the media and legal analysts have made a case for impeachment based on multiple allegedly impeachable offenses. The following discussion explains in more detail the arguments that are used.

NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
In the context of the "war on terror", President Bush ordered wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy supposedly similar actions in the past (i.e. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it allegedly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures - this includes electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation. In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution (unitary executive theory), to bypass FISA. (See also: Separation of powers and rule of law.) In January 2006, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released two legal analyses concluding that "...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law." On February 13, 2006, the American Bar Association issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis observes that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law. Also five former FISA judges voiced their doubts as to the legallity of the program. ---

I would add that this is exactly one of the things that got Nixon impeached.Further, I think that the actual events as they transpired makes an interesting narrative, and the case hardly digs as deep as we could dig. The case against the wiretapping has been getting deeper and larger in leaps and bounds. Prometheuspan 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) -- 	 Some commentators, responding to the Bush administration's justification of the program, say that its interpretation of presidential power overthrows the Constitutional system of checks and balances and ignores other provisions of the Constitution mandating that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and vesting Congress with the sole authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Elizabeth Holtzman, John Conyers, John Dean and Jennifer van Bergen from FindLaw assert that FISA has been violated and the claimed legal authority is invalid, constituting a felony and as such an impeachable offense. A detailed investigation into the matter seems to be averted.

Wheres the defense echo? Some thoughts to show how level headed and neutral i am. First off, in the situation as it currently exists, I think it might be reasonable and possible to assume good faith with the Administration on this. I personally DO think that this is breaking the law, and even that it is an impeachable offense. However, did the Bush Administration realize it was breaking laws, did it break them in good faith? In the terrorist panic situation,

it might even be justified to wiretap people, and, even perhaps the case might be made, that the level of secrecy over who was being wiretapped is an important factor in the security of the effort.

Prometheuspan 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) ---

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

Justification for Invasion
Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq &mdash; the possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda &mdash; have been found to be false, according to all official reports. . The Bush administration advocated that this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed, which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. Until today, an in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies has been frustrated. Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war. The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation. Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. A report by the Washington Post on April 12, 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite evidence to the contrary. Activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, both by withholding information which he ought to have communicated, and by supplying information, in his States of the Union speeches, that he should have known to be incorrect. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath. John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- asserts that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime. - 	 Prometheuspan 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC) This is the strongest argument of the set in many ways. We know for a fact that the WMD argument was fallacious, we know that it was doctored, we know that there were plans to sell the idea of war to the USA population before 911, we know that there is no causal link between 911 and Iraq, we know that the CIA knew this and that it told the Administration that it knew it, and we know that the weapons inpsectors and everybody not republican close to the situation knew it even at the time. Moreover, we know that the Administration searched for months for a good rationale for the war, we all lived through the trumping up of wmd claims. The Bush Admin lied about WMD, lied about the 911 connection, and led us into a war for oil and turf. Again, where is the defense echo? Prometheuspan 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC) ---
 * "The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."

Geneva Conventions controversy
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. Representative John Conyers has advocated investigating the abuses to see if they violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while Francis A. Boyle and Veterans For Peace hold that impeachment proceedings should be started. - 	 This is grounds for impeachment if we can show that Bush ordered the torture, which we pretty much can. More importantly we can show that he defended the torture, and that it continue thanks to his intervention on its behalf. Given the treaties we have signed, this makes us a criminal nation, thanks to the Bush Admin. It should also be noted that the quality of information obtained by torture has been categorically useless, and that in general the persons who have been tortured by the USA haven't in general even had the information we were seeking. For defense? Again, it basically comes down to idealism versus pragmatism. Should we save lives by means of torture? I find the idea reprehensible. But still, theres the defense in a nutshell. Prometheuspan 03:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC) ---

more stuff deleted without propper cause or discussion by merecat
again, merecat deletes things without discussion and without due cause.

this is recovered from the articles history. Prometheuspan 01:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC) - - 	*Findings Report: Enemy Combatants and the Geneva Conventions by the Council on Foreign Relations, December 12, 2002 - 	*GUANTANAMERA: The Continuing Debate Over The Legal Status Of Guantanamo Detainees By JOANNE MARINER, FindLaw, March 11, 2002 - 		 - 	Representative John Conyers has advocated investigating the abuses to see if they violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while Francis A. Boyle and Veterans For Peace hold that impeachment proceedings should be started.
 * U.S. Officials Misstate Geneva Convention Requirements by Human Rights Watch, January 28, 2002

more deleted fby merecat
this time, merecat deletes the start of the defense echo. Could it be that merecat wants to make the article look even more biased than it was? hhmmmm could be. Prometheuspan 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC) -- You Say] Tim Shorrock, The Nation, March 2, 2006 In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution (unitary executive theory), to bypass FISA. (See also: Separation of powers and rule of law.)
 * [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060320/shorrock Watching What

George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachable; Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security] By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, December 30, 2005 471608.column?coll=la-news-columns Is Clinton's history in Bush's future?] by Rosa Brooks, Los Angeles Times, December 30, 2005 pecial Prosecutor Bush's NSA Spying Program Violates the Law] By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, CounterPunch, March 4 / 5, 2006 Anyone Worry About Whose Communications Bush and Cheney Are Intercepting, If It Helps To Find Terrorists?] By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, February 24, 2006 A detailed investigation into the matter was deemed unwarranted by a Senate Committee.
 * [http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html
 * [http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-brooks30dec30,1,
 * [http://www.counterpunch.org/vanbergen03042006.html Time for a S
 * [http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20060224.html Why Should

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

Prometheuspan 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How to improve this article
The Constitution (Article II, Section 4) reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

To improve the article, each allegation against the president should begin by reciting the alleged criminal act by the president and by providing the state or federal statute or Constitutional provision that was broken. Following this introduction, evidence (both damning and exculpatory) should be provided, along with comments by legal scholars on interpretation of the law.

After a cursory read of the article, I saw no evidence the president was alleged to have committed treason or bribery so all other charges must fall under "other high crimes and misdemeanors." Be careful each allegation meets that criteria. For example, the section of NSA wiretapping is full of weasel words. Not only is it not clear a law was broken, it is very clear the president has taken all the necessary to seek out legal approval from White House Counsel and Attorney General prior to the action and that he informed Congress of his actions. While some may argue against the president's claim to have inherent constitutional authority to request NSA wiretaps, nearly every legal scholar (except only very few rabid partisan Democrats) admits that charge is going nowhere. If there is evidence the president has broken a law - let's see the evidence. Otherwise, this article appears to more impeachment cheerleading rather than informative. 14:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * i'm a little confused. IMHO this article should not try to claim what is or is not a "high crime or misdemeanor", which would be original research AFAIK. It can only cite what external, reasonably notable people or organisations claim is an action by Bush that should qualify as a "high crime or misdemeanour" for impeachment purposes. Do we agree here or not? It's not totally clear to me if we agree, but maybe it's just me who is confused... Concretely on the NSA case: i don't see "legal scholar[s] admit[ting] that charge is going nowhere" as being a way to cite people/organisations who claim that Bush legally did the unwarranted NSA wiretaps. Charges "going nowhere" are not necessarily wrong. i'm sure there are plenty of charges of corruption which in reality are based on The Truth but in practice "go nowhere", and there are charges which are false but which "get a conviction". Anyway, if you have some citations of lawyers or organisations stating that Bush acted legally in this instance, then please add them. Boud 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget the overtly "biased" ABA and Specter, who also is convinced that spying without a warrant is illegal, and at this moment is irritated by the lack of cooperation/information provided by the administration.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 00:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is just shameful
This whole debate is just discusting. The corrupt AFDs, the policy violations and incontrol of it all has shocked even the toughest of souls. But what can I expect from the encyclopedia which created articles abot obscure animes before many African countries and even the George W Bush article.. I don't care if it's kept or deleted as I am not a Bushwhacker, I am here for the reasons of absurdity. I have the wikitext saved in a notepad so the deletionsts can suck it, wikitruth.info should mirror this in their uncencored archives. This scam demonstates once again that Wikipedia can't be used more than for poketrivia and even then there are more authortitive sites for that. If any of you are STILL wondering why this site attracts so many ranicd vandals and POV pushers, then it is artices like this. If Jimbo actuaully cared about his encyclopedia he would of delete this crap until George W Bush left office in three years time. He did it for Mr Peppers who's only "crime" was being ugly, he should have an obligation to protect major living people such as presidents. To summarize, Wikipedia is on wheels, where the "wheels" are katamaris of all the pov pushing antics that go on here and countless other aritcles. I could go on, but reading all the other antics on WP:AFD and AP:ANI from a "on wheels" POV is enough to make anyone sick. Signed, a pissed off former contributor to Wikipedia, who left for a good reason. And if this is reverted, then I win by default.