Jump to content

Talk:Trial of Saddam Hussein

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taishaku (talk | contribs) at 17:16, 6 November 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Grammer is teh sux0r

The second sentence in the article "On June 30, 2004, Hussein, held in custody by U.S. forces at Camp Cropper in Baghdad, along with eleven senior Ba'athist officials." is not a sentence at all! 72.224.120.138

You might find you'll get a better response if you post to the bottom as is the norm. Also, it's usually better if you date your posts so people know it isn't something 3 years old that is no longer relevant. Use four tildes instead of 3.. Nil Einne 07:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then correct the damn mistakes and don't make an entire subtopic. Taishaku

Odd Saddam statement

did he really say "I am Saddam Hussein al-Majid, the President of the Republic of Iraq" at the first hearing? That would be quite blasphemous, since Al Majid is one of the 99 names of God. I think it is more likely that he said "`Abd al Majid" (servant of al Majid), which is his actual name. 81.63.63.37 13:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


why do you keep adding the Wikinews template when there is no article at the other end of the link? 81.63.63.37 13:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In arabic when you don't say Abdul it is intended........... Nobody would ever dream to call himself with one of the 99 names of god. For exemple , one says "my name is Halim" , of course it is intended Abdul Halim.

Vandalism

If you want to make a political commentary, try an online forum or write a blog. Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Don't be a jackass and disrupt articles here, please, for your own amusement - it's irritating.

Could people please stop adding un-sourced and un-substantiated claims to the "Criticisms" section, if you have a vaild compliant please source it as per the Wikipedia guidlines.

Again, would people stop reverting to a version of the page which is unsourced, the rules are that the page should only contain sourced material, not comments made up by people who dont like the judgement, please use acreddited sources as per the Wiki rules.

Lock the Article

Can someone lock this article? Too many people disrupting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an anonymous user (talk • contribs)

I was correcting the article, not vandalizing it, and especially not with anti-american propaganda. Anti-war propaganda, maybe. The Uniteded States are not at war. War can only be declared by congress. They haven't declared it. President Bush is abusing the power he has to send troops without a war actually taking place. If, for some reason I cannot fathom, a said country was to invade the United States and murder members of the Bush administration, and aprehend President Bush, would we still consider him to be our president even if we disliked him? Would we instantaniously change our political stance and suport the newly elected leader that the invading country forced us to choose? Has the deaths of 2134 soldiers been enough to try Saddam and his defendants for the deaths of 143 shiites in 1982? I think not.

Define American. To me, it is american to be free-minded, considerate, and tollerant. It is anti-american to accuse some one who is an american of spreading anti-american propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.107.251 (talk • contribs)

Guys, at least have the decency to spell correctly when you present your opinions. The War on Iraq is beside the point. This article is on the trial of Saddam Hussein. Do not attempt to define what it is to be American. Do not question the legality of the invasion. Talk about things that will improve the quality of this article. Taishaku

Dreadful title

This is a terrible title for an important article and reminds me more of a thrilling novelization akin to The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby or The Perils of Pauline with Saddam as our plucky hero. I know the lack of detail on the charges and how many and how long it may last but almost anything might be better. I suggest Saddam Hussein criminal trials or something better. MeltBanana 21:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound like something out of The Pilgrim's Progress I was just coming here to say that but MeltBanana beat me to it, SqueakBox 21:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal sounded POV as it could be construed to uimply he is a criminal, which he clearly denies, so I moved it to Legal trials of Saddam Hussein, which I think is unambivalent, and changed the redirects, SqueakBox 23:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense, a "criminal trial" is a trial under criminal law, you are not a criminal until convicted. "legal trial" is much more pov, since it implies that the trial itself is legal, which is disputed :) - Anyway, this article used to be entitled "trial of Saddam Hussein" which was perfectly fine. Then it was moved to "trials of Saddam Hussein" by either a prankster or a person without much sensitivity for literary registers of the English language. Since this is still the first trial, I see no reason why it shouldn't stay at "trial of Saddam Hussein" for now. 80.219.176.175 08:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be trials as in trials and tribulations, or time trials? Ah, the difficulties of being a dictator User:Sandpiper 20 Oct 2005
Why not Saddam's 4 1/2 years of struggle against lies stupidity and cowardice?
What's wrong with simply Trial of Saddam Hussein? Pluralizing trial makes no sense at this point, unless I'm misreading the article and there are indeed multiple trials in progress; the first sentence of the article uses is, not are. I suggest a move to Trial of Saddam Hussein. If there are subsequent trials, we can disambiguate as needed. android79 13:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with the anon that legal trials is also hopelessly biased. I was not unhappy with trial but was with trials, so I agree with Android, and if there is more than one trial we can face the problem then, SqueakBox 14:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to feel that "Trials" is the right name, so can we just move it back? Are there any objections? Some guy 23:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple trials planned, and this article should cover, at least briefly, the other charges that will very likely be brought against him in future. That is why I moved it to the plural.--Pharos 23:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's assuming Saddam will still be alive after the first trial, which surely is doubtful in the extreme. And anyway, it presently doesn't deal with any other trials. —Simetrical (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judge

addressing Kurdish judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin I can't find any reference for the name offered as being one of the Judges Sherurcij 22:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The judge has just made his name (and face, with the video coverage,) public information at the start of the first trial. The names of the other judges are secret, and they have not been filmed in court.--Pharos 01:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Losing content

Content has been lost in recent edits, please take care when moving this article. I will now try to bring back most of the following content (edited somewhat). -Wikibob | Talk 23:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It won't have been removed during the pages moves, it wouldn't be technically possible. Perhaps it was deliberate (the page is suffering vandalsim today), SqueakBox 23:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't mean to imply the loss occurred during the move, it happened when someone tried to repair a vandalism. My take care comment was inappropriate, and was due to my being caught out by the page move while trying a few times to restore the losses - too much haste on my part.
Anyway I have restored the lost content, and decluttered this talk page by removing this from here. I took the lost pre trial section from ErikvDijk's version as of 23:14, 2005 October 19, and made minor edits for style. I then changed section Start of first trial to Al-Dujail trial, and made more minor edits.-Wikibob | Talk 23:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, I understand now. We had an edit conflict with you losing out, and me not even noticing, SqueakBox 00:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protection?

I've replaced the vandalized content with http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Legal_trials_of_Saddam_Hussein&oldid=26089982 . However I wish that an admin would lock this article.yamamushi

I thought standard policy was to lock articles on the main page. They can always be changed by an Admin based upon comments in the discussion page here.

No the standard policy is exactly the opposite; it is to not lock main page articles. We are the encyclopedia almost anyone can edit, and to maintain this reputation it is important to keep main page articles unlocked. It seems to me there are many good editst hat would be lost if it were locked, and there are plenty of people quickly reverting, so I oppose strongly a locking, SqueakBox 15:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that leaves things wide open to abuse. Valid edits can be done by Wiki Staff based upon comments in discussion. It is good to have 'anyone can edit', but when vandals or other kind of irresponsible people edit main page articles, it is like putting your worst in the store window.

No, if it gets protected the rules state nobody can edit it; admins don't get editorial rights or privileges. Wikipedia is widen open to abuse as vandalism is an inherent pronblem in this type of open source project. Perhaps if people see that it is a problem they will feel inspired to help combat it, SqueakBox 18:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very high-visibility, vandalism-prone page. It needs to be protected. - The Kooky One

EDIT: User 205.188.116.74 is continually vandalizing this page. - The Kooky One
EDIT again: This is getting desperate. Why isn't this page protected, like most of the others on the main page? - The Kooky One

Co-Defendents

Might it be wise to include a list of his co-defendents, as some of them are vaguely prominent etc. As well as showing he isn't alone in facing these charges --Narson 13:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

indeed - it may even be a good idea to make Al-Dujail trial a separate article. 83.77.217.223 14:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charges

While I have no specific suggestion of improved content to make, i was struck by the choice of charge for this trial. It relates to acts in the far past, which have precious little to do with the stated reasons for invading the country, which was essentially done with the sole aim of removing him from his job. The charge has plainly been selected on a political rather than moral stance, with the deliberate intend of glossing over shortcomings in the legalities of the actions of the invading armies. Is this mentioned? User:Sandpiper 20 October 2005

From what I understand, the choice of charge to prosecute this time has been made on the basis that it is "the easiest to prosecute" and/or "has the most available evidence". Other charges may be made in the future. Guinness 21:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
it's the principle of least effort, I suppose. They reckon that if this comparatively minor issue is sufficient for Saddam's death sentence, why bothering with unrolling an avalanche of other offenses. If Saddam isn't sentenced to death, they will obviously bring forward the gassing of 5,000 Kurds and all sorts of other atrocities. I don't see how this is a morally questionable, or a politically motivated approach. If the trial was intended for propaganda, no doubt they would be heaping as many accusations on Saddam as they can, not just one incident. 83.79.189.191 12:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right, if he were charged on everything he did, the trial would take the rest of his life.
  • The "easiest to prosecute" fairy-tale was trumped up by the US media. In reality the charges were selected for their independence from any Amerikan influence. Essentially, any other charge that could have been made against Hussein would have resulted in (if it were a fair trial) the detailing of Amerika’s support for Hussein in his earlier endeavours. Even my local newspaper in Hamilton, New Zealand, documented this fact. I personally find it quite obvious and would have expected it to be common knowledge for anyone editing on wiki.

Calling Saddam Hussein by his first name

It seems to be one of those insidious propoganda techniques. We don't call any other world leader by their first name, do we, even if they were 'deposed and evil.' Or shall I go to Stalin's entry and change all references to 'Josef?' Is that the style of wikipedia.

  • Your charges of propoganda are unfounded. Saddam's name is Saddam. He doesn't have a last name in the Western sense; Hussein is a patronymic. See Saddam Hussein#fn_2. android79 16:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought western culture had a patronymic analogue, like Andrew Jackson is Andrew, son of Jack? So Hussein IS his last name, or family name.
  • calling Saddam Saddam is like calling Stalin Stalin. It means to humour him and call him by his self-appointed cool and manly title. Or rather, according to Saddam's autobiography, it was given him by his mother after she was kept from getting herself run over by a car during pregnancy. Saddam apparently is an Iraqi term for a car's bumper. As a youth, Saddam (always according to his own account) lived up to his name by carrying an iron rod wherever he went, smashing in the skulls of the kids he didn't like. If you want to be tough on Stalin, go and change all instances of 'Stalin' to 'Dzhugashvilli', not 'Josef'. 17:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • is 'Hussein' his patronymic though? I think not. Hussein is actually his first name; Saddam is something like a nickname, regardless whether self-adopted, or given by his mother. If Hussein was a patronymic, wouldn't it need to be "ibn Hussein"? See also [1]. 130.60.142.65 19:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    • I think Bush said it best himself: "In my line of work you need to repeat things over and over - to sort of catapult the propaganda."
      • just, it would help if you had an ounce of rhetorical talent, or charisma...

Saddam Hussein's full name roughly means (In Iraq), Saddam the son of Hussein (his father's name is Hussein). Saddam's sons Uday & Qusay should be listed as thus Uday Saddam & Qusay Saddam (son's of Saddam), does anyone know more about this topic? GoodDay 00:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, this is part of how names work in the Arab world, for whatever reason. People that deem it as "western propaganda" seem to be unaware (or ignore) that this is practice occurs locally; Baghdad International Airport used to be "Saddam International Airport", not "Hussein International Airport" nor "Al-Tikriti International Airport", for example. I can't say that I fully understand how they work though; after all the creation of Abdul Aziz Al-Saud is "Saudi Arabia", not "Abdulazizi Arabia". Anyone that knows more than I do care to create Arabian name? After all, we have Icelandic name... --Bletch 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elizibeth II is called by her first name and she doesn't seem evil. Dudtz 12/22/05 5:36 PM EST

Yeah. It's correct to refer to Saddam Hussein as Saddam. In China, your last name goes first. In the Arab world, your real name comes before your father's and tribe's names.Taishaku

future

actually, the future tag is in order for this now, especially as long as the title remains at "trials". It is speculative that there will ever be more than this one trial. If Saddam is sentenced to death and executed, there won't ever be a second one. Also, the trial is adjourned until Nov 28th, which is in the future. 130.60.142.65 20:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

quoth User:Texture,

rv future tag - nothing speculative in article regarding future hearings - trial has begun and will be ongoing rather than future, past, or present

-- did you even read the intro? It talks about all sorts of trials that may or may not be held in the future. Could you rephrase it, then, to talk about the actually ongoing trial, please? 08:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

trials again

back to "trials", are we? do people even read talkpages anymore? I suggest a move to tribulations of Saddam. Seriously, this is one trial, the Al-Dujail one. God knows if there will be any others (not likely, since everybody seems eager to execute Saddam as soon as possible). Wo what is wrong with trial of Saddam Hussein? 130.60.142.65 11:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree, Trials sounds sensational, trial, if this is only trial, "trial" is both more accurate and more neutral. JoshuaRodman 17:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. There is only one trial. This should be moved back. - Tεxτurε 20:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unattributed comment

Pulled from top of page, no attribution, kind of soapboxing. JoshuaRodman 17:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In murder cases, they usually establish who gave you the means. I wonder if we'll see who did that, in this trial: Chirac, Schroeder and Putin: "We didn't know he was going to use them!"
edit history reveals that the original comment had 'Rumsfeld' where another anon later substituted 'Chirac, Schroeder and Putin'. Whatever. I wonder if that's Saddam's famous "fourth pillar of defense" ("shed an unfavourable light on US foreign policy") -- we'll see. 17:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Whoever did the edit is pretty stupid given that Chirac, Shroeder and Putin clearly weren't the leaders of France, Germany and the Soviet Union in 1982. Rumsfeld involvement with Saddam and Iraq is of course documented and was AFAIK occuring in 1982 Nil Einne 09:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Trial?

Now, don't get me wrong on this, I am not a supporter of dictators. But one of the supposed reasons for deposing Saddam was to demonstrate how to run a country properly. So now I find I am watching a news item about the trial. The defence lawyers have been blown up, so plainly are not being properly protected by the Americans. Sadam apparently has to make notes about the proceedings on his hand, because they have refused to allow him his papers. Don't ask me why. Apparently the camera feed was cut off so we couldn't see this. Apparently the camera feed is regularly cut off when Saddam makes a point, or something which looks bad on the Americans happens. We are not allowed to see him having his handcuffs removed as he comes into court? I know this from the voice over, from a respected UK journalist. What was just reported was not a fair trial. Why does the phrase 'soviet show trial' come to mind?....Ah, I know, because the Americans publicised it. Now, where does it say this in the article? Sandpiper 22:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a point to this? Defence lawyers are not likely to accept American protection. (How would it look to Saddam loyalists if those who claim to be on Saddam's side are always flanked by Americans?) As for not showing his handcuffs removed, this was in response to Saddam's own request not to appear in court in a prison jumpsuit and handcuffs so as not to prejudice the court. You're complaining that his requests are being (however slowly) fulfilled? What exactly is it you want added to the article? - Tεxτurε 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite of this needed

I've removed the following:

Criticism

There may be some encyclopædic validity in the criticism, but it is so poorly written and POV that in thta form it could not possibly stay as written in an encyclopædia article. Anyone want to try to rewrite it? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point about the strange charges has been widely covered by the international media so it should be definitely included in the article. Please improve the section to better form or explain more specifically.

In reference to the vandalism section, sources need to be quoted as per the wiki rules, merely adding "citation needed" dose not count as a valid source, please stop adding unsubstantiated claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.180.51 (talk • contribs)

This is true- but some of the material you are removing does suggest sources. Please be careful to parse only the unsubstantiated statements. Badgerpatrol 02:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the so called "substantiated" material most of it is at best vague or passing comments, there are no definitive comments. We are all capable of suggesting sources, but actually citing them is a very differnt thing, I could "suggest" sourcest that Saddam is from Mars, but actually finding peer reviewed sources that confirmed this would be totally different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.180.51 (talk • contribs)

Well, Wikipedia sources do not need to be peer-reviewed, especially for current affairs and non-academic articles- see WP:Reliable Sources. The references for the coincidence of the trial verdict and US election dates seem to my reading to be very strong and directly support the assertion made. I tend to agree that the rest should probably be removed until sources can be found. Three things as an aside; 1) Please be careful when reverting or you may be blocked for a WP:3RR violation (please follow the link to explain); 2) It's a very good idea to leave an edit summary outlining your reasons for making a change or reversion for the benfit of fellow editors; 3) It is also helpful if you get an account and sign in, although this is not essential and you should not feel compelled to do so. Badgerpatrol 02:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New organization?

The way the article is set up, after the introductory paragraphs, the trial is explained chronologically. I do not think this is the right organization. I would organize it with the charges levied against Hussein first, followed by a chronological list of events, followed by some analysis (public perception, criticisms, etc). This seems more logical for conveying the information. Anyone agree?--AK7 02:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

The statement at the end of the article indicating American and international armed forces as an occupying force lends an air of negative bias to the article. I would suggest changing the article to characterize American and international armed forces as peacekeepers or security forces.

Occupying force is NPOV. See military occupation. It's widely used in Wikipedia.

While I agree an arguement could be made that the movement of the sentencing could be linked to the elections, I question the extrapolation that that means the judicial branch is just a lacky of the legistlative branch. Verbage is way too harsh. (I do not have a wikipedia sn).

This paragraph should really be changed

Also during the arraignment, Saddam defended Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait and referred to Kuwait's rulers as "dogs," which led to an admonishment from the judge for using coarse language in court (dogs are widely considered to be unclean animals in the Islamic world, much like how Islamists are widely considered to be unclean animals in the civilized world).


I agree, seems very POV to me.

It's blantantly POV, and considering its more popular use is likely to be "Americans are dogs." (Just stating a fact here. No offense intended.), it's not even correct. --Revth 08:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of a paragraph that should be changed, the last one. Unless there's proof that the U.S. was "widely involved" with crimes against the Iranians and Kurds (and they weren't as far as I know -- though I don't know the full details about the chem. weapons, U.S. support was mostly diplomatic & satellite images of enemy positions) that sentence shouldn't be there. The rest of the paragraph's kind of bloated -- you could probably just make the case that critics have claimed that the U.S. is concerned about relevations about its relationship with Iraq in the '80s. Not get into all the unproven speculation. Dr. Trey 08:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

criticism section

is badly in need of sources. who exactly has said these things? as it stands the whole thing is an unrelenting barrage of weasel terms. Dsol 09:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably worth reflecting that, no matter what else, under international law, as the President of the country at all relevant times (and arguably remaining as such since his "deposition" has been caused by armed forces of invasion/occupation), the defence of sovereign acts appalies to all the charges, which must be dismissed.
Unless, of course, the verdicts are to be dictated "through the barrel of [several] gun{s]" --62.25.109.196 13:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hmm

America has more terrorists than Iraq. That's a known fact, jack. --Cyberman 15:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, China or India will have more "terrorists" than US because of their larger population. Also, technically the entire armed force of PROC and ROC are considered by each other to be "terrorists". While you may argue that the rate of "terrorists" per population is greater in US, Nepal will top the list because of its Mao group. World is a quite big place for terrorists. -- Revth 00:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ICC

Erm

He may also be tried for events dating to the Iran-Iraq War and the invasion of Kuwait including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Are we certain he faces the possibility of all of those? "war crimes" isn't a specific criminal action, so seems unlikely. CaH is more likely. Genocide, not certain. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and references

There are 13 numbered ref_notes, but up to 16 numbered endnotes in the article. Also several numbered links mismatch. For example endnote 16 points to ref 12, and ref 13 (Saddam on the Stand) is an orphan. Can someone fix them please? -213.219.187.165 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just fixed all of the links. There was one orphaned link:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/witness-wont-let-saddam-intimidate-him-court-hears-of-horror-nightin-dujail-town/2005/12/06/1133829598921.html

which I cannot find a place for in the article. Meighan 09:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the reference format because an item I added put the footnotes in an unobvious position. I renamed Notes and references to Notes. I'm not happy with the format, as there are no Notes, but the section is presently needed for the link to News. -- Randy2063 16:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Maybe someone should include a little criticism on the fact that all saddam husseins lawyers are being killed and that kind of interfers with his right to a fair trial. --84.30.97.7 01:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger strike

He began and ended a hunger strike? I'm sorry, but skipping one meal is NOT a hunger strike. Shouldn't it be changed to him intending to go one? That might be accurate, but from what it says here, he never did.Eric Sieck 05:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


New trial

Is there going to be a new article for the new trial? If so how will naming the series of articles work?--Peta 03:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal and cleanup

A vandal removed the references and external links [2] in two edits. I've readded them but some clean up is needed especially of the external links as someone added new stuff in the meantime. Nil Einne 08:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reference fix?

References 1,2,3 are identical to 22,23,24. Anyone who knows how to fix that, please do! Note that they did not state what was claimed, and I adjusted the phrasing conform the contents. Harald88 12:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to give the reference a name e.g. <ref name ="DateControversy1"> instead of <ref>. Then for the second use of that reference, use <ref name ="DateControversy1"/> and you're done. Not that you put the / at the end so you don't need a </ref>. See here Wikipedia:Footnotes or see my edit [3] for more info and examples Nil Einne 13:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a false alarm, but a quick google search shows that the article is remarkably similar to [4], which is copyrighted - the first hearing section is especially questionable. Time3000 13:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the aljazeera article says "Source: wikipedia.org" at the bottom so if there is a copyright violation, it isn't our fault. Potentially there is a copyright violation since AlJazeera appears to have whole-sale copied our article so they need to license it under GFDL which isn't made clear on the page Nil Einne 13:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned this on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#GFDL violation Nil Einne 13:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...sorry, didn't see the source bit at the bottom. Time3000 14:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Saddam's defense?

Saddam's lawyers offered what defense?, other than the court is illegal. were any defense witnesses called?CorvetteZ51 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are so many people complaining about the trial? He was a terrible tyrant, he filled the streets of Baghdad with widows and orphans and his sons had raped many young women. He deserves death. He has the blood of many on his hands.

The ends justify the means. That is all that really matters, in every case.

You make an interesting point, oh Corvette driving thinker. Of course, this exact philosophy is probably used by terrorist organizations when explaining their actions against countries that have blood on their hands. If ends justified the means, why have a court at all? Why have police? Let's just live in a lawless society where your gun is the law. Oh wait, that's almost where we live anyway.

Criticism section

This section has lacked sources for a year. See the comments from December 2005 above. I propose the unsourced comments be deleted, as they are Original Research, unless someone has a Reliable Source. Valtam 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal Attack removed) Badgerpatrol 00:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of IRAK 2005

Hi, I've noticed that there was some vandalism in the preambule of the iraki constitution. Could you plase check it out?

Unfortunate for Saddam

Ever since birth, it is Saddam's instinct to keep himself alive. He ultimately discovered that power offers him the best chance of survival, and he tried to keep that power in whatever way possible. After his fall, he thought he might live under the mercy of the West if he surrendered himself peacefully. However, little did he know he'll be facing capital punishment under the justice system. It's a sad turn of events for Saddam, but under international scrutiny of human rights abuses, he deserved the sentence.

What does this add to wikipedia? The above is your opinion and as such, unhelpful to the development of this article. This discussion board is here so that issues with the article such as grammar, neutrality and accuracy are maintained.. It is not a forum for beliefs

Guys. Put down your names so we know who's speaking. Taishaku

Plagarism

I was searching for citations to the quotes currently appearing in the first section of this article after the introduction. I found an entire paragraph of more taken from the Al Jazeera English Online web page. [5] Anyways, I don't know how to procede with this, but I suppose the paragraph needs to be drastically changed to make it more of a summary of the Al Jezeera summary of the events that actually transpired. Then I guess the whole new paragraph can be cited with the link posted above. I'll do it myself later this week if I get the time and if it is not changed by then. Comments welcom, also I plan on looking through the rest of the above posted link to see if there is any more cut-and-pasted info in this article. CoolMike 03:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link was broken, I fixed it, hope you don't mind. Don't forget to check that their text wasn't taken from here, rather than the other way around (although this is very unlikely). Badgerpatrol 03:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is normal practice on wikipedia to add new comments to the bottom. Please follow this practice as it helps to keep things in order. Also, it's something helpful to check what others have previously mentioned. This issue was raised above and the page clearly mentions they got their content from wikipedia. However there is a pontential copyright violation, specifically they appear to be violating the GFDL which I have asked people to look in to Nil Einne 03:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Quality journalism at its best... Badgerpatrol 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply Badgerpatrol and Nil Einne. It occured to me later while searching up some other stuff that it might have been taken from wikipedia instead of the other way around. It Seems strange to me that a news organization would take things from an open-content source like wikipedia... 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Selective removal

Some of you may have noticed this anon User:84.64.180.51 has been removing stuff. He/she argued it was unsourced and while it was true for some (but not all of it), he/she still broke the 3RR multiple times which I have reported. However I'm concerned about one of his/her removals. [6] (done several times). Note how he/she removed unsourced material about someone being acquited but not unsourced material about two others being sentenced to prison? We have to take care about these sort of selective removals Nil Einne 03:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and removal

It would be helpful if everyone would remember to add sources when they add new info. It's all very well adding something you've read but unless you tell us where, we're going to have to find it again which is just a waste of time. Also, while for recent stuff it'll probably be fairly easy to find a reference but several weeks from now it may be a bit tricky. If you're not sure how to reference something, either ask for help or just do a <ref>[[http://this.is.the.url/here]]</ref>. Heck even if you just include the link without and wikification at all is better then no source. Also, if your considering removing unreferenced stuff from this article, if it's recent stuff and/or specificially attributed to someone it's probably far easier for you to find a reference then get in to an edit war (which may very well happen). I'm not denying the need for references or the right of an editor to remove unreferenced stuff but there is quite a lot of unreferenced stuff like the international reactions but no one has removed it because it's probably true and it should be easy to find a reference. Similarly why remove stuff like criticism from AI because it's unreferenced when it was very easy to find a reference Nil Einne 04:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in intro

I removed a {{fact}} from the intro about the verdict date-US election controversy. The reason is because this is cited below in the criticism section where the same thing is mentioned. In fact nothing in the intro is cited and I presume the reason is because the intro is supposed to be a summary so generally everything else should be mentioned in the main article and cited. I've seen this in a number of featured articles where there are general no citations in the intro (except occcasionally for translations and stuff) although I haven't seen this mentioned as a policy. BTW, in fact the thing was cited in the intro but it was removed at some stage. The citation is still named (I named them) and can easily be re-added to the top but until there it's clear whether we should cite things in the intro I'm leavin it as is Nil Einne 06:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weasel words?

the article is currently tagged as such, but i don't see recent references to that in the discussion page. could someone please point out section(s) using weasel words, so they can be rewritten properly? - Aaronwinborn 13:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this tag is now out of date. There used to be a lot of unsourced stuff in this article which has since been removed. See [7] for example. (I didn't add the tag or do the removing so I can't say for sure) Nil Einne 13:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trial_of_Saddam_Hussein&oldid=86078606"