Talk:Operation Menu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Menu article.

Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Aftermath

This section states that since this bombing/incursion was conducted without the consent of Congress, it would have been cause for impeachment of the President. I question this statement. Admittedly, I am not familiar enough with the then-current state of Constitutional Law in this area, but I believe it would have been a cause for impeachment only if the President actively, knowingly took part in deceiving Congress. In that case, it would have been the act of deception/lying/perjury, not the bombing itself, that may have been an impeachable offense, if it could be proven to measure up to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" (ie. that an actual crime had been committed by the President). If somebody can clear this up for me, that would be appreciated.

[Note: This question (unsigned) is from the old version of the article before substantial rewrite and referencing of 2006-11-07, 11-08. Lumbercutter 02:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)]
  • Regardless of the "high crimes" label, the point is moot. The bombing of a neutral country would most probably fall under the aegis of international war crimes, such as the stipulation against waging aggressive war. The secretive nature of the action only condemns its practitioners, since it revealed their knowledge of the posssible repercussions of their actions. RM Gillespie 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are there no casualty / loss estimates on the Cambodian side in this article? There are many published estimates, and their gravity suggests they be looked into for inclusion here as they lend perspective to the serious human cost of the "beyond covertness" that occured during these activities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.106.188.82 (talk)

[edit] Sources

It would be helpful if the author cited his sources here.--Buckboard 09:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to dig my copy of Sideshow out, but I know that Shawcross lists all of the things currently tagged with {{fact}}. --Easter Monkey 06:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Required

I added a cleanup tag to this article because some of the sentences are gramatically incorrect or are composed in an awkward manner. For example: "Deception revealed when Major Knight wrote to Senator William Proxmire, asking for 'clarification' as to US policy on bombing Cambodia. He spilled the beans as to the deception."

In addition, I added a tag about the article's inappropriate tone. For example, one passage reads, "Lying on official records. This deception went beyond covertness." The tone of this passage strikes me as editorial in nature. It may true that someone lied on official records, but one need say so in a manner that does not seem overly dramatic or condemnatory.

--Skb8721 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, I just started editing this stub today and look at the response. Fantastic! As per the aftermath, I didnt write that. So, I can't really comment, except to say that Nixon considered it within the perrogatives granted him under the Southeast Asia Resolution of 1964. As for impeachment, they thought about it, but due to the bigger fish being fried during Watergate, this got sidelined. With Gerald Ford's pardon (for crimes not committed), it became impossible. RM Gillespie 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, now that I have finished editing the article, you'll see that it was not I who made such an overly dramatic or condemnatory a statement. When the DOD (presided over by the Joint Chiefs and the SecDef who were all privy to Menu) presented those records to the Armed Services Committee, knowing that they were falsifications, I believe that that would be considered lying. They were caught red-handed. RM Gillespie 20:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow! Kudos to RM Gillespie

Kudos to RM Gillespie for improving this article's quality by several orders of magnitude in the past few days. When he first started, I was thinking "oh great, another 'improvement', let's see where this goes…" However, as he progressed, it became clear that the initial edits were just the bones of a rough draft. Today I came back and I see that this article is now better referenced than 99% of WP articles. Normally I would not comment on minor improvements, but this is huge. So kudos to you RM Gillespie! Lumbercutter 02:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gracias, amigo. Check out Operation Freedom Deal to see the next phase of Air Ops in Cambodia. RM Gillespie 16:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)