Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:53, 13 July 2007

Iraq Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transfer of Power Between Branches of Government

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

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

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

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

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

There are two separate questions:

• How much fighting can the President do around the world without a good old fashioned formal declaration of war?
• Under what circumstances, does the US have the right to suspend habeus corpus for US citizens within the US, and other controversial things?

My thinking, and I'm certainly no expert, is that:

There is no formal declaration of war in effect. Congress can't delegate war-declaration powers even if it wanted to. Congress doesn't authorize wars, the Constitution does. The Constitution only authorizes war if Congress makes a formal declaration of war. The War Powers Act explicitly refers to the President trying to obtaining a formal declaration of war at some point after the start of hostilities, (among other possibilities), in certain situations. Therefore, even the War Powers Act clearly announces that it doesn't pretend to try to 'delegate' war-declaring powers to anybody. The President may well be able to use force, but he can't call it 'war', at least not in the sense used in the Constitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore they stated:

"The Supreme Court recently and forcefully reiterated that, notwithstanding the Constitution's vesting of "all legislative power" in Congress, enactments which leave discretion to the executive branch are permissible as long as they offer some "intelligible principle" to guide that discretion."

So you see the courts have ruled and further upheld the ruling that there is no illegal transfer of power and that HJ Res 114 accomplishes for all purposes what a "declaration of war" accomplishes "a join participation of congress and the executive". --Zer0faults 20:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===============

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

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

Roll Call

Wouldn't it perhaps be less cluttered if we linked to the Roll Call Page for both the Senate and Hosue votes, rather than have massive lists? — Linnwood (☎) 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a LOT of work done on this. There's really nothing on the resolution itself other than bullet points of rationalizations for war. What about something on the context of when it happened and what about the political consequences of voting for it: particularly anti-war democrats having to justify having voted for the war.

Thoughts on Running Parenthetical Commentary in Outline of Factors used to Justify Authorization of Force

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

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

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

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

Whether or not the evidence available at that time supported this point is a matter of opinion. To assert otherwise is clearly a violation of NPOV. There may be evidence to support this contention (i.e. that evidence at that time was not sufficient), but clearly there is also evidence to support the opposite as well (e.g. see George Tenet's new book "At the Eye of the Storm" and .) NPOV policy states that the article should not promote one view over the other. Arguments from both sides should be given and the reader should be left to decide for themselves. To make the claim that "We know now..." is a obvious violation of NPOV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed the tags since the statements are sourced in the criticism paragraph.

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

This sufficiently addresses the points raised. Thank you. Nomen Nescio 08:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

It seems Bush has to be defended at all times. even it it results in claiming that a factual article is POV.

1. SH and AQ were not working together. See sources.
2. SH did not have WMD's. See sources.
3. The available evidence, and I mean all of it not the limited amount supporting Bushco, did not support the solid case that was made regarding point 1 and 2.
4. Only now do we know the evidence was not a smoking gun. At the time we were not told that.

in light of the above it is factual and NPOV to state that we now know allegations of WMD's and a working relationship with AQ were not supported by the available evidence at the time. Clearly you are making a point but the argument is unwarranted, incorrect is only supported by a increasingly small group of people residing in the White House. Since the edit war is becoming tedious I let you alter history and leave the tags that should have been removed. Nomen Nescio 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

With the running commentary it is near impossible to get just what the bill says.GATXER 12:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to debate the subject here. Any discussion I am not party to and am unable to read I feel not obliged to acknowledge. I restored the comments as explained above. If you are unable to understand the difference in style is to indicate comment and not the actual language it is a pity. But other editors will surely understand. Thank you for discussing your edits. Nomen Nescio 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary break

• I observe you have just

1. stated your unwillingness to discuss and resolve any dispute,
2. announced you will edit war as an alternative to dispute resoltion,
3. violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.

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

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

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

Your are right....I will not allow you to hurt this page with POV.....this page is to important...BTW: I agree with most of what you have typed.....but it is POV and doesnt belong. Im not A bush lover I voted for Gore and Nader.GATXER 07:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I have a POV, it is called "presenting all the facts so readers can make up their own mind." You may have noticed your POV which is "delete all facts that are uncomfortable to the Bush administration since it amounts to criticism and any criticism of the US government ipso facto should be withheld from readers should they become confused and start doubting the Fuhr, err, Great Leader." Nomen Nescio 11:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nescio, you most certainly have not presented all the facts. You have only presented one side - both in your parenthetical comments and in the criticism section. And the presentation of the "facts" by means of your parenthetical comments makes it very difficult to include opposing views in the same space (and thus with equal treatment) without further compromising the readibility of the article. As far as your claim that GATXER "deletes all facts that are uncomfortable to the Bush administration," this is obviously false since he has left your comments in the criticism section untouched. The running commentary should be removed, as it is not possible to leave it there and still allow equal treatment of opposing views while still retaining the readability of that section of the article. You should realize that your edits (in particular the parenthetical comments) are seriously detracting from the legitimacy of the article, thus working to defeat your rather obvious agenda.

Of course you are right there is insufficient space for a nuanced comment. What you fail to understand is that there is no nuance.

1. AQ and SH did not work together.
2. Iraq was not involved in 9-11.
3. SH did not possess WMD's

Those are the facts, we might not like it. Heck, we may even find conspiracy theorists disputing it. But as the sources show, every investigation to date has corroborated these points. Therefore we can make a simple statement. Then there is the comment on whether this resolution and the myriad media reports from the WH was in accordance with the intelligence reports. Again, subsequent investigations, see sources, established that taken together the available evidence was insufficent to warrant the "smoking gun" rhetoric. So, with that in mind adding a comment reflecting the fact the statements were unsupported by the evidence is again correct and factual. Please tell me exactly what part of the above you think is not true. Nomen Nescio 12:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

(indent) Thanks for your comment but my interpretation of events is more strict.

1. Was SH involved in 9/11, or even working with AQ? You yourself admit he was not. Of course we can speculate that by having some incidental contact with a remote affiliate of the neighbour of the sister of ... But by that logic even the US itself is supporting AQ, see details on who they are funding in Iraq. aside from OR it does not negate the fact that official reports c oncluded there was no active relationship. To suggest there was is rewriting history.
2. Regarding "friendly contacts" I remember a certain high level US person having a nice cup of coffee with SH. For some reason we ignore the fact that that person, although he had a good time, now suddenly asserts SH is the greatest threat to mankind. Sounds like a contradictio in terminis.
3. As to any contact in 1999, or 1864 for that matter, I would only object because it is irrelevant. To claim something from 4 years before is a valid casus belli defies logic and violates international law.
4. By your own explanation the weapon inspector thingy was moot. The fact they were present and actively working in Iraq makes a resoltions that is a decade old moot. Further, one could argue whether such a resoltion could be referred to indefinitely. Ten years, twenty years, fifty years? How many years can a country be bound by it?

Respectfully Nomen Nescio 08:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Also, the reader is better served if we concentrate statements and their rebuttal at the same location. Otherwise people might miss what actually6 happened to the SH was involved in 9-11 links . Nomen Nescio 11:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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

GAXTER

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion by Addhoc

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

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

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

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

• Is the information correct yes or no. Please answer that! Nomen Nescio 10:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

• So, it is your position that:

1. SH was involved in 9-11?
2. SH did have WMD's?
3. Inspectors were not allowed in Iraq?

Are you certain of these points? You are awarer that even the Bush administration no longer holds that position and has officially stated they were wrong? Nomen Nescio 10:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Could I suggest you attempt to find a workable compromise instead of continuing to edit the article? Addhoc 11:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

I was about to add sources to your compromise when the disruptive revert prevented me from doingf so. It is evident this editor objects to mediation as he again stated above where he reiterated his promise to revert on sight. As it stands his position is that the resolution accurately stated Iraq was behind 9-11 and had WMD's for another attack. As such he refuses to inform the reader that position is entirely incorrect and no evidence excists supporting it. As long as he keeps reverting and prevents me from even inserting sources I see no solution. His behaviour clearly opposes any compromise that would have him shift his position. Nomen Nescio 11:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

To Addhoc...we have tried but he wont listen....hes in need of a Mediator in at least 4 Bush pages.GATXER 11:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• You bet I am. Anybody removing the fact that Bush invented WMD's and links to AQ deserves to be corrected. Nomen Nescio 11:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I basically agree - this isn't about truth / falsehood, it's about taking the criticism, adding sources, rewriting from a neutral perspective and merging into the criticism section. Addhoc 12:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting copying the bulletlist with rebuttal to the criticism section? Nomen Nescio 13:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting extracting the rebuttals, rewriting them from a neutral perspective, and merging them into the criticism section. Addhoc 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the "criticism" section be changed to an "analysis" section, to allow a more balanced discussion of the language in the resolution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.135.3 (talk • contribs)

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

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

I have no problem re-editting daily his POV edits to protect this page . GATXER 23:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I can't remember anybody saying Mr G is free to edit war and revert on sight, even if that means deleting the sources he asked for. Nomen Nescio 09:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Since you are the only edit warrior we must refer to pluralis majestatis. Nomen Nescio 10:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threading is good:

    thanks for looking but you clearly have no idea what I was talking about, ....please read the other comments on this page and get caught up and comment again when you know what we are talking about

Then maybe you should express yourself better? I read everything in this section, expecting everything relevant to the discussion under the POV section header to be present, unless explicitly mentioned otherwise.

    "we now know" was on this page many times which were removed over and over.

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

    I also said the Ref were anti-war or Bush.....I didnt say the souces all were.

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

Untalked about protection

One wonders what board Editor N used to get a page protected by someone who discussed nothing before page protected. A blind man could see this page is not 100% NPOV. Its been dicussed over and over on the talk page. Editor N seems to be on a edit war on many Bush pages. I would like the person who protected this page without even saying why explain why they thought it was a good idea? In any case it should be remarked and unprotected ASAP. GATXER 03:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• The fact you suggest any involvement in this by me and the ad hominem seems to skirt WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. You have already been informed not to engage in such behaviour on this page and here. Second, any other person might see this as an opportunity to elaborate on why this article is factually incorrect and POV. Not being able to edit war is an incentive to start discussing your edits.:) So, take it away and explain what exactly you consider inaccurate? Respectfully. Nomen Nescio 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• Start-Class Iraq articles
• Low-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles