Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-18 Iraq War

Mediation Case: 2006-05-18 Iraq War
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Zer0faults 20:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ...Talk:Iraq_War


 * Who's involved?
 * ...Myself Zer0faults 20:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC), User:Mr. Tibbs and to a lesser extent User:Wombdpsw


 * What's going on?
 * ...User:Mr. Tibbs insists the casus belli for the Iraq War was WMD. However the term casus belli states "formal declaration of war" the closest thing being HJ Res 114(PDF) which is the Congressional document "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". He instead keeps posting links to what Powell said to the UN via CNN interviews and articles. The whole discussion is encompassed in trying to find a way to make the [[Iraq War] articles opening paragraphs NPOV. I have tried finding middle grounds by offering to state all reasons for war, or none, and simply added that there were reasons other then WMD. None of those 3 compromises worked as he insists the opening paragraph he wrote stays the way he wrote it. He has even reverted stuff by User:Wombdpsw without stating a reason in the history.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ...I would like User:Mr. Tibbs to at consider a middle ground, its WMD as reason and only reason or nothing it seems.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * ...webmaster@anarchys99.com however discreetly isnt particularly necessary.


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?


 * This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
 * what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.


 * ...Sure if I know of the topic and feel I won't have a bias.

Mediator response
Hello there. I am Cowman109Talk from the Mediation Cabal. I'm not taking this case as I lack knowledge in this area, but as this case was submitted 10 days ago, I came here to inform you that it is unlikely you will get a mediator any time soon. The mass of information down below is quite intimidating to any would-be mediators, which is why we generally ask that these incidents are kept short and to the point. My recommendation for you would be to seek some other route of the dispute-solving process, as it may take quite a long time to get an informal mediator for this case. Request for comment may be a possible route you may want to take. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 20:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A mediator already came and helped. Thank you for looking into it though, he proposed a solution, but unfortunatly Mr. Tibbs was unhappy with it and so we are back to square one. --Zer0faults 20:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. Well, as the Mediation Cabal is an informal process there is not much that can be done if one of the disputants is unhappy with mediation. Are you still looking for assistance from the mediation cabal, or will you be looking into other dispute-resolving methods? I don't mean to rush you, it's just that I am trying to organize the case list - cases similar to this in the past have been lost over the months with no response given. Cowman109Talk 20:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure if I worded that properly. What I meant to say was, are you still requesting mediation from the Mediation Cabal or are you looking into other alternatives? Thanks. Cowman109Talk 01:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No Mr. Tibbs has made it clear he will not find a middle ground sadly, he didnt take the advice offered by the one who handled this mediation, not the admin he brought in which has posted below, nor even a normal user he asked to comment on the page. Mr. Tibbs just does what he wants and we have resorted to realizing the Iraq War article will stay a mess as he constantly reverts peoples work. Unfortunatly there is nothing left to do but deal with it. --Zer0faults 10:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright. I'm sorry to hear that, but if this process of mediation failed there are still other steps to take if you still wish to change things and he is unwilling to. See dispute resolution for others options. I will be closing this case as per your request. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with for misconduct and  for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil. Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less. The following comment was offensive and used by User:Mr. Tibbs:

"Again you are being purposely obtuse so you can editwar your POV into the article. Stop it"

he then went on to state:

"I have made no personal attacks. However I have ceased to assume good faith and realize full well what you are doing. Which is Purposely being obtuse about "casus belli" a term that I readded to the article in the first place. And Purposely distorting what HJ Res 114 is. And it's sad that I have to cease assuming good faith, but assume good faith does not mean "bend over""

-- So I have been called obtuse, and then accused of attempting to "Purposely distorting what HJ Res 114 is" and finally User:Mr. Tibbs has admitted that he will "cease assuming good faith" Even though he has never even attempted a compromise. --Zer0faults 22:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

State all the reasons listed in HJ Res 114 in the opening paragraphs. State none of the reasons for going to war that appear in HJ Res 114. Specifically state the full reason in HJ Res 114 for WMD's being a threat, which is: they may be used on his own population, given to terrorists or used against US interests or Armed forces. Find another term other then casus belli as the pages stated definition does not match its use.

Comments by others
I would like the mediator to be aware that a very similiar situation just happened on 2003 Invasion of Iraq. In fact a vote was attempted to try and cease the edit war. A vote on the same issue was also conducted on the Iraq War page. Despite the community consensus showed by the vote Zer0faults continued to revert claiming that a "majority on talk page is not suitable grounds for removal". I think a similar straw poll could also easily resolve this dispute, but I am concerned that given Zero's history he will again refuse to abide by it. I would also like to note that I am unwilling to argue endlessly on various talkpages like Zero apparently wants. Also note the editwars on these pages regarding the same "Part of the War on Terror" phrase: Waziristan War, United States invasion of Afghanistan and similiar articles listed on this template: Template:War on Terrorism. -- Mr. Tibbs 21:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Really all thats need here is a simple straw poll initiated and monitored by an Admin Stating "Users who think the casus belli of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was WMD" and another column for those who don't. But I am unwilling to let an intro that was forged by a group effort to be churned up so flippantly. -- Mr. Tibbs 21:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Unfortunatly I will not adhere to a straw poll since too many times I have seen users state information that is not factual on both sides. Mr. Tibbs himself during that straw poll in 2003 invasion of Iraq even questioned if a user knew what they were voting for, so I am sure he sees this happening. The problem is unfortunatly that Anoranza and Mr. Tibbs have decided to go around to all articles that contain the information "war on terror" and added : US Dubbed, US Coined, (this term is disputed) etc to those articles without discussions. Perhaps they felt that since people in one article though the term was in dispute that the non binding straw poll then held domain over all other articles. Oddly enough Anoranza has stated Afghanistan was part of the War On Terror but Iraq was not, then continued to change Afghanistan to state the term was disputed. This is another example of people voting to get across a political agenda instead of to input factual information into the articles. I have tried 3 times to reach a middle ground with Mr. Tibbs however he states constantly that he will not accept any changes that do not particularly state WMD's as the casus belli. He has even gone as far as to state the Congressional resolution "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" is not valid for casus belli because Powell did not state all those reasons in front of the UN, however he fails to see that reasons put before the UN wouldnt have to be in a formal declaration of war for the US.

I am not against stating that WMD were a heavy influence, however casus belli refers to the "formal declaration of war" and HJ Res 114 is the closest thing considering the war has technically never ended, its been in a cease-fire.

I offered the following in terms of a compromise, changing:

The 2003 invasion was undertaken by a multinational "Coalition of the willing"[40] led by the United States and the United Kingdom, which invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's government on the basis that Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and so was a threat to the world

to

The 2003 invasion was undertaken by a multinational "Coalition of the willing"[41] led by the United States and the United Kingdom. The reason that was most publicized for the invasion was the that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and was willing to share those weapons with terrorist organizations, use them on his own civilian population or against the United States directly.

simply expanding on the reasons why WMD's were even an issue and that was completely ignored. --Zer0faults 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, this "compromise" is unacceptable. The Iraq disarmament crisis touched off the 2003 Invasion of Iraq not the "Iraq Terrorism Crisis". -- Mr. Tibbs 02:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Having read the discussion I believ that whilst Mr Tibbs is correct in tha fact that Iraq disarmament crisis was the major contributing factor to the war it should not be promoted as the ONLY reason.Zerofaults is offering the best compromise IMO which Mr Tibbs is refusing to accept for whatever reason. Perhaps this would be better to submit to the mediation commitee rather than this cabal as it is a high profile topic. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 10:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tmorton, how would I go about submitting this to mediation committee? Or better yet is there an admin around who would setup and monitor a vote on Iraq War to resolve this dispute? -- Mr. Tibbs 03:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Go here to submit to the mediation commitee. Agreed though, you could get in touch with an admin to get a vote. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 16:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Does it matter which Admin sets up the vote? Looking on Current surveys there isn't any set procedure. Think Wikipedia needs a Request:Survey system like it has a Request:ForAdminship system. Should I just write one up myself? Zero complained about the last one in a statement on this page so I would like to make it as fair as possible. Say with one column saying:
 * "Users who think the casus belli-(main officially stated reason) of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq Was WMD-(Iraq Disarmament Crisis)"
 * and another column saying
 * "Users who think the casus belli-(main officially stated reason) of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq Was Not WMD-(Iraq Disarmament Crisis)"
 * Or does that not make sense? -- Mr. Tibbs 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The community has already spoken regarding the issue of polls, you cannot hold a popularity contest because you ran out of ways to frame your point that have not been proven factual instable. Perhaps if you were willing to find a middleground as numerous people including one you asked to comment on the page,User:Nescio, have reccomended, then the issue could be solved. I will not yeild facts to popular opinion as you are only asking for a vote because polls worldwide show people are against the war, however that does not mean that the reasons for going to war change, also the whole debate shows that media coverage has in fact polluted the pool. I will not aceept a poll because most people have not read "The War Powers Act of 1973", "HJ Res 114", "UNSC Res 1441", "680", "668" etc, therefore they cannot comment as to what the official reasons for war are. Futhermore your questions you propose are incorrect, as they do not even frame the other side of the debate properly. We are stating there are numerous casus belli mentioned, not just WMD. This goes to show you why Straw Polls are not binding. --Zer0faults 13:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I got a note on my talk page asking me to look in here and possibly help guide a 'poll'. However, after briefly reviewing the situation I don't think a poll would neccessarily solve the dispute. It seems to me that Zer0faults is arguing that government documents listed various grounds for the current Iraq War while Mr. Tibbs is arguing that the over-riding publically proclaimed reason was the then believed refusal to comply with WMD disarmament. Based on my own recollection I would say that both of those statements are true. The debate seems to be over which of these frameworks should be included in the article or listed as the 'casus belli'... which in the most technical sense is the list of grievances in the formal 'declaration of war'... which was never actually issued for the current "use of force" in Iraq. I would urge everyone to put aside the terminology and any impulse to present the facts in a politically favorable way and take a little 'poll'...
 * 1) Does anyone disagree that the 'WMD' argument was by far the most widely proclaimed reason used to 'sell the war' to the public?
 * 2) Does anyone disagree that there were other grounds stated (verbally or in documents) for the invasion?
 * 3) Would anyone claim that either of these facts should be excluded from an article on the Iraq War?

Please indicate your views on these three items in any response. If we can agree on those issues (I know, I'm a dreamer) then what we really need to work out is how to make sure the article includes all the information in a balanced way. --CBDunkerson 21:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This doesn't really answer your questions but: The point I've been trying to make with several pages of "dialogue" with Zero is that the government documents Do Use WMD as the main reason to invade Iraq. Zero keeps on referring to HJ Res 114 and the "list of reasons" it contains. But the preamble section is Not a list of reasons. From HJ Res 114 Preamble: "Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution..." Is that a reason to do anything? No, if you look at the rest of HJ 114 and not just the Preamble you'll see what it authorizes: "strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts;...":"defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and so on. This government document makes it very clear what is being authorized and Why. So not only was WMD the most widely proclaimed reason to 'sell the war' all the government documents do the exact same thing. There wasn't any massive discrepancy between what was sold to the public and what was in HJ Res 114. In fact I'm sure Zero would take exception to such implied deceit. - Mr. Tibbs 03:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's an anonymous user doing a tally of HJ Res 114 following Zero's reasoning that the Preamble is just a long list of reasons: and look at the "response" from Zero: . - Mr. Tibbs 03:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hell, lets let Bush explain this one in his own words. Helen Thomas recently asked him about all this:
 * "Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?"
 * "THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect -- "
 * "Q Everything -- "
 * "THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please."
 * "Q -- everything I've heard --"
 * "THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people. Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second -- "
 * "Q They didn't do anything to you, or to our country."
 * "THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --"
 * "Q I'm talking about Iraq --"
 * "THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans. I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --" 
 * "Q -- go to war --"
 * " THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it. "
 * "Q Thank you, sir. Secretary Rumsfeld -- (laughter.)"
 * Source:
 * Were there secondary reasons? Sure, at one point Bush even talks about a "committment to children" in Iraq as part of an extension of his "No Child Left Behind Act". But the Main Official Reason for the war in Iraq, in HJ Res 114, in Bush's prewar ultimatum in all of his Public Statements, written, verbal, formal or informal is WMD. -- Mr. Tibbs 03:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * " THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it. "
 * "Q Thank you, sir. Secretary Rumsfeld -- (laughter.)"
 * Source:
 * Were there secondary reasons? Sure, at one point Bush even talks about a "committment to children" in Iraq as part of an extension of his "No Child Left Behind Act". But the Main Official Reason for the war in Iraq, in HJ Res 114, in Bush's prewar ultimatum in all of his Public Statements, written, verbal, formal or informal is WMD. -- Mr. Tibbs 03:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

-

I have a problem here. There seems to be a misunderstanding as to what a "Authorization of Force" resolution is. The United States of America has not used declarations of war because Congress passed what is called the "War Powers Act of 1973". This document limits the presidents ability to goto war without Congress first approving it, it did this in response to the presidents initiation of the Vietnam War without congressional approval. The closest thing the US Government has to a "declaration of war" is the congressional document HJ Res 114. Unfortunatly for the community Mr. Tibbs wants to argue both in favor of this document, and against it at the same time. He uses the fact that WMD's are mentioned in it in his favor, yet then goes on to state that the "whereas" statements are not important. I would like to point out this new arguement has arose after I showed how the HJ Res 114 connects to the War Powers ACt of 1973.

The truth of the matter is "whereas" statements are whats called "findings of fact." I am going to take this two fold, first by giving the definition of preamble:

1. A preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal document that serves to explain its purpose. 2. An introductory occurrence or fact; a preliminary.

and now "whereas" :

"It being the fact that; inasmuch as."

From this it shows that the whereas statements are made to determine what Congress finds to be facts relating to the document, the document it titled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002". Consider the preamble is laying out facts, the whereas statements end and the legal terms continue. We have 3 sections, as the first just renames the resolution, that are relevant to our discussion here, they are titled: "SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS", "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES." and "REPORTS TO CONGRESS."

The first section "supports the efforts of the President to-" Enforce through the UN all Security Council Resolutions, and further "obtain prompt and decisive action through the UN SC to enforce its resolutions.

The second section states the president is authorized to use armed forces as he feels appropriate to enforce the resolutions and defend the national security of the US. The most interesting part relevant is part (c) of section 2 titled "War Powers Resolution Requirements-", where it states : "'(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.'"

Now if you refer to section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Act you see:

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--

(1)       from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or

This section is specifically titled "Interpretation of Joint Resolution" which states how Joint Resolutions are to interpreted. Its stating that no law or provision in any act can be inferred to authorize the instroduction of Armed Forces into hostilities unless such a provision specifically authorizes it. I cannot see how HJ Res 114, named by Congress as "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" can be interpreted to not fit that criteria. So in summary I am contending that HJ Res 114 is in fact a "formal declaration of war" as seen by the United States since the President can no longer declare war alone since the passing of "The War Powers Act of 1973" after the Vietname War. Furthermore what can be seen is Resolutions are the standard for the world as well, when the United Nations Security Council authorizes its member states to goto war, they do it with "United Nations Security Council Resolutions" not with declarations of war. Finally this decision was made on the basis that the United States Constitution states in section 8.

"Congress shall have the power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

Futher showing why declarations of war, which are signed by the president are not used in the United States and has not been since the passing of the War Powers Act of 1973, reaffirming Congress is who decides if the US goes to war.

Here at Wikipedia we cannot take talking points made by the president during an interview to mean more then what Congress votes, because only Congress can declare war as stated by section 8 of the US Constitution. I have already provided to Mr. Tibbs numerous online articles by CNN etc that show there were many reasons stated publically, however the fact remains is only congress declares war and the preamble states why with their "findings of fact" or "whereas" statements. I contend that while something may be more publicized by media outlets we cannot write it as the sole fact. --Zer0faults 14:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just further also found in the War Powers Act is the following reasons a President can introduce forces into conflict:

SEC. 2. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

This states that the president only has the powers to introduce Armed Forces into hostilities if there exists a declaration of war, national emergency caused by a direct attack or specific statutory authorization, which HJ Res 114 is. --Zer0faults 14:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is also a link to the United Nations speech Bush gave stating his reasons for wanting to goto war. They clearly show there are numerous reasons and they should be noted in the article. The read of the article Mr. Tibbs wants, states that WMD's were the casus belli and they were never found. This is horrible portraying the war as unjust by giving no weight to any other reason stated for going to war. As I have contended, media coverage is not a reasonable measure for the reasons, WMD's is sensationalist and so it gets more coverage. We cannot rewrite history because CNN things people will watch stories about WMD's --Zer0faults 15:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"'I have a problem here. There seems to be a misunderstanding as to what a 'Authorization of Force' resolution is. The United States of America has not used declarations of war because Congress passed what is called the 'War Powers Act of 1973'. This document limits the presidents ability to goto war without Congress first approving it, it did this in response to the presidents initiation of the Vietnam War without congressional approval. The closest thing the US Government has to a 'declaration of war' is the congressional document HJ Res 114. Unfortunatly for the community Mr. Tibbs wants to argue both in favor of this document, and against it at the same time. He uses the fact that WMD's are mentioned in it in his favor, yet then goes on to state that the 'whereas' statements are not important. I would like to point out this new arguement has arose after I showed how the HJ Res 114 connects to the War Powers ACt of 1973.'--Zer0faults"


 * No, this is completely untrue. America still has and always will retain the ability to officially declare war on other nations. After all, as Zero pointed out, the War Powers Clause in Article 1 of the US Constitution states: "The Congress shall have the power to declare war". The War Powers Act of 1973 is an old document requiring that troops cannot remain in a hostile area longer than 90 days without congress declaring war. See War Powers Resolution for more info. Every president since the War Powers Resolution enaction has basically ignored the time limit on military actions. Although HJ Res 114 does pay it lip-service with the renowned "Consistent with" phrase: (See for an explanation of the significance of that.) For instance here's Cheney talking about it: "Cheney said that "many people believe" the War Powers Act, enhancing the power of Congress to share in executive branch decision-making on war, is unconstitutional and said "it will be tested at some point. I am one of those who believe that was an infringement on the authority of the president.""  This is similiar to Bush's habit of using "Signing statement"'s to state that he would not feel bound to comply with some of the provisions of the law's he signs, such as the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.  So what Zero is trying to do is tie HJ Res 114 to an Act that the Bush Administration basically refuses to recognize. I think it's very clear at this point that Zero is basically Filibustering the Iraq War article. I also think it's pretty clear Wikipedia is built on consensus not just handing over control of content to whoever can argue/editwar the longest. CBDunkerson, lets just setup a vote and get this over with. The exact same thing had to be done at 2003 invasion of Iraq when Zero did the same thing over there. -- Mr. Tibbs 23:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are not reading what I write at all. I stated that "authorizations of force" have replaced formal declarations of war. Your proof to the contrary is Cheney saying he doesn't agree with the document ... Again a talking point of the government and not a fact on what it is, what it does. You also say that every president has ignored the time limit on military action, but that also doesn't take into account that you haven't looked up every presidents meeting with congress. Section 5 states the president has to meet with Congress to extend the Authorization of Force, can you factually state he never met with congress after the signing to extend the period? Also since the troops were already massing in Iraq that already a beginning of the engagement "technically". See Dick Cheney can say what he wants, but I already pointed out to you that Congress declares war as stated in the constitution. You have not even debated this but to claim that the president doesn't like it, which is irrelevant to if it exists and what it states. So lets go over your arguements in relation to mine. I am stating "Authorization of Force" resolutions passed by Congress are declarations of war as recognized by War Powers Act. You have introduced the following arguements to invalidate my comments:

Bush does not feel he needs congressional approval.
 * This is not relevant, what he "feels" is different from what the Constitution says. The War Powers Act was made to clarify when and how and for how long the president can use the Armed Forces, and that is what it is doing. Its made to limit his powers, what Bush feels about this is not relevant to what it says, what it does legally.

Congress can still declare war
 * If you are stating can congress sign a declaration of war, that would be false cause congress does not sign declarations of war, they are signed by the president. They can however declare war, they do this, since it also requires the president, by passing an Authorization of Force, giving the president the power to deploy the troops if he also agrees about force being needed. The War Powers Act balances Congress and the President, Congress tells the president its ok if you deploy troops, the Commander in Chief then does so if he feels necessary, also stated in War Powers Act.

Cheney said he feels its "unconstitutional"
 * Unfortunatly what Cheney feels is not relevant here either. Congress passed the War Powers Act and then continued to override Nixon's veto by an overwhelming majority, it is the law now and has been for 33 years now. What people feel and say on the news is not relevant to the fact that its a law now.

Connection between Bush not liking and "signing statements"
 * Bush can write that he does not like a law that is being put up for vote or that he is signing, however this document is before his tenure. Its also currently law, so while he can go ahead and ignore it, that doesn't mean he will, can legally, has before, etc.

The facts are that HJ Res 114 is connected to Authorization of Force resolutions by granting the president the power to deploy forces only after Congress has voted overwhelmingly in favor of it or if the US is attacked, or another nation delcares war on it. These facts have not even been put into question. If you see the above style of making your points you would see why I do not want a vote. Mr. Tibbs instead of presenting facts, states what may happen in the future, what could happen if we allow XYZ or instead of facts, he points out interviews and talking points and press releases. Futhermore his standard constantly changes. It began with Powell in front of UN as determination of casus belli, when I showed him Bush's UN speech it changed to the ultimatum the night before, when I then showed his quotes from that speech the determination for casus belli changed again to a single interview that lasted 5 questions. IF we are back to public speaking as the determination, then I once again submit that Bush's speech in front of the UN found here is then to be weighed more then a 5 question interview. I request Mr. Tibbs be asked to define what he thinks would be adequate for proving casyus belli, because his floating reasons have led to the mess on Iraq War article as I try to prove to him WMD's was not the only reason. I have shown quotes, speeches, official documents, he has intern shows 5 question interviews, powell's speech and talking points. --Zer0faults 10:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Yeesh you guys are wordy. :] There is an important implication to note in the passage Zer0faults quoted from War Powers 2.c... the President may introduce armed forces in an emergency response to an attack, when war is declared, or when given authorization. War or authorization. Two different things. The president was given authorization for the use of force in Iraq, but war was never declared. Technically, in terms of US and international law the 'Iraq War' is not a war because it was never legally declared such. Ergo, there aren't any 'official' casus belli because officially there is no 'belli' to have 'casus' of.

Hence my statement that we should get away from such terminology... in these circumstances it can only be used in an imprecise way and different people are using different types of imprecision - Mr. Tibbs defining 'casus belli' as "main officially stated reason" while Zer0faults defines it as 'all reasons stated for the use of force'... either of those can be 'true' or 'false' depending on how you redefine the term. I again urge you to abandon the semantic argument (which is inherently pointless - you are each 'right' under the definitions you have built for your position) and work out text which actually describes the situation truthfully for both. Any finding that the 'casus belli' was WMD is going to be simply false to those who view 'casus belli' as 'stated grounds for force' because there were several others... but any finding that there were many 'casus belli' is going to be equally false to those who view 'casus belli' as the cause for war. No poll can resolve that definitional disparity and thus must inherently achieve a result that one group will view as 'untrue' and 'biased'. We can do better. There has to be a way that both 'truths' can be worded such that neither side sees anything as 'false'. --CBDunkerson 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Declaration of was is if another nation declares war on the United States. Wouldnt the president maintaning power to declare war and congress already have it via the constitution make the war powers act pointless? Why else would nixon have attempted to veto it if it did absolutely nothing? I have offered to state that WMD's was most publicized however Mr. Tibbs refuses. --Zer0faults 00:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not accepting Authorization of Force Resolutions also means you are stating that there has not been a legal war since WW2, including the UN's attack on Afghanistan, as only a resolution set that in motion, as well as the UN's first invasion of Iraq, US intervention in Kosovo etc. This doesn't just extend to the US, but no diplomatic nation has signed a declaration of war since 1973, including the UN --Zer0faults 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Nixon was opposed to Congress being able to make 'limited authorizations'... prior to the 'War Powers act' they either had to 'declare war' or not, and once they had declared war the President could then prosecute it pretty much however he liked. Since then they have been able to say, 'We approve a use of force of X men for Y duration' either directly or through budgetary control. Note that I'm not saying 'authorizations of force' are invalid... they are perfectly legal, they just aren't the same as a 'declaration of war'. The whole 'we are not really at war' aspect of the thing is obviously kinda silly (if it quacks like a duck...) and has led to alot of confusion and redefinition of terms, but 'use of force' is at this much pretty much just a euphamism for those things we used to (and in a non-technical sense still do) call 'wars'. --CBDunkerson 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)