Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice The title of this article, "Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda", has been chosen after lots of discussion and numerous votes, with unclear consensus. Ongoing discussion is always welcome.
This article is 100 KB or more in size.
Some browsers may have difficulty rendering this article. Please consider splitting it into multiple sections.
Archive
Archives

Archive1 (April, 2005)
Archive2 (April, 2005)
Archive3 (April-May 2005 2005)
Archive 4 (June-September 2005)
Archive 5 (September 2005-February 2006)
Archive 6 (March 2006-June 2006)
Archive 7 (June 2006)
Archive 8 (June 2006)
Archive 9 (June-July 2006)
Archive 10 (July-September 2006)

Contents

[edit] Powell's 2001 WMD claims

Why do people keep deleting this?

Powell's 2001 WMD remarks====

During a press conference in early 2001, while in Cairo on state business, Powell said of Saddams WMD and military capabilities:

"And frankly they [sanctions on Iraq] have worked. He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." [1]

It shows he stating something VERY different than he would later claim. Thanks - FaAfA 02:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Because he's not saying anything there about whether Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda. Saddam's links to WMDs or his conventional threat to the region is really not relevant to this page. csloat 02:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I know this page isn't primarily about WMD's but when there are sections like :
2003 CIA report - "The next day, President Bush gave a brief talk at the Roosevelt Room in the White House with Powell by his side and stated the following: "One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons...Iraq has bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."
2002 British intelligence report -In October 2002, a British Intelligence investigation of possible links between Iraq and al-Qaeda and the possibility of Iraqi WMD attacks issued a report concluding: "al Qaeda has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological expertise from Iraq, but we do not know whether any such training was provided
Powell 2003 -The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.
I feel Powell's contrary claims in 2001 are relevent, but if you don't, I won't pursue it. I'll check for an Iraq and WMD article. I'm sure there is one. I had this article checklisted. Not even sure why! FaAfA 03:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Those quotes all deal with an al-Qaeda connection. The article on Iraq and WMD is here. csloat 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Links Between Saddam and al-Qaeda

The book, TheConnection, outlines a set of contacts between Al-Qaeda, and the Saddam Regime. I will expand on the specifics in a future update. To my knowledge the Book (The Connection) has not been discredited. There are some doubts about the Atta meeting in Czech, but that is about it. I will try to eventually list its major points.

Similarly, I note that almost all the most Western Intelligence Agencies, including the prior Clinton Administration believed that the Saddam Regime had restarted his WMD program. This reference was also deleted. Again one has to demonstrate that this citation is wrong before deleting it.

From a context perspective, I will note that Saddam had WMDs and was within three years of a nuclear weapon in 1991. Otherwise this article would imply there is no factual basis for the US concern on WMDs. In particular, the 9/11 attacks reveal that a non-state actor with access to WMDs could destroy several US cities. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction via massive retaliation does not work with non-state actors. These facts, along with increasing globalization has dramatically changed the US strategic calculus. There is a greater emphasis on premptive wars and not waiting a threat to fully mature before striking first.

My notes below will obviously generate dispute among editors. I am requesting comments as to truthfulness of these assertions and if truthful, why they should not be in the article. As it stands, the current article reflects an strong anti-Iraq War perspective and explicitly denies any valid basis for this invasion. I think this is not the case; at the very least both viewpoints should be well represented in this article.

Below is list of Eighteen (18) links (mainly journalists) on the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. At mininum he provided money, training, weapons, passports, safe haven, and medical treatments. Joint Operations were at least discussed. Direct Operations with Ansar al-Isalm were carried out. As the 9/11 Chairman notes: Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States."

As noted by the NY Times, the statements made by the Bush Admin. on the contacts between Saddam and Al-Qaeda were essentially Correct. They never stated that Saddam had an operational role in the 9/11 Attacks: Bush Admin (Correctly) Claims Relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda: http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/iraq-quaeda.htm

It is obviously hard to get details on the Inner workings of a small terrorist organization, but in WWII the US destroyed entire cities on the basis of information that had the same level of credibility as these articles. The 18 links I noted above are as follows:

Al Qaeda proposed Operational Cooperation with Saddam (2006): http://www.nysun.com/article/29746

Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaidia Cooperated in Killing Anti-Saddam Kurds. http://www.nysun.com/article/39631

Al Qaeda Training in Northern Iraq (under Saddam): www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868301/posts

Al Qaeda Contacts with Saddam (from 9/11 Report): http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp

Detainee Assets Operational Contacts with Saddam: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

Senator Clinton (2002) Notes Al Qaeda and Saddam Contacts: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/the_abcs_of_iraq_and_al_qaeda.asp

Note on Al Qaeda + Saddam contacts in Report: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507011134.asp

W. Safire Note on Report listing Contacts: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05EFDA1239F932A15755C0A9629C8B63

A list of Al Qaeda Contacts with Saddam: http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/iraq_alqaeda_connection.htm

Links Missed by 9/11 Report: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

Saddam Trained Thousands of Terrorists, many Al Qaida Afflicated: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Original Summary of Defense Review of Contacts: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Ansar Al-Islam in Iraq http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={9E091170-6A9D-48CA-BC7B-02FF7F84A443}

Zarqawi Trained by Al-Qaeda in 1989, in IRAQ in 2000: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1793632,00.html

Al Qaida and Antrax Attack: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/14/usnews/whispers/main3500524.shtml http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/startling_implications_of_a_ji.html

Review of Selected Sources on Saddams Support of Terror and Al Qaeda: http://www.regimeofterror.com/

Saddam & Terror Funding (some Al Qaeda Links): http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Saddam & Al Qaeda Links (2003): http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31597 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITBlair (talk • contribs) 07:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

All this stuff is fleshed out in chronological order in the timeline. Please refer there; most of the above is nonsense from non-WP:RS sources, but the little that has been published in reliable sources is already well-documented and discussed in Wikipedia on the timeline page. csloat (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Four View Points

Two views are proposed between Saddam and Al-Qaeda (1) Cooperative Effort and (2) Operational Role in the 9/11 Attacks. I think we should add (3) Iraq & Al-Qaeda Contacts and (4) General Iraqi Support for Terrorism to the list. I think the evidence is clear that Saddam at least provided Safe Haven, Funding, Weapons, Training and Medical Treatment to Al-Qaeda. This was in keeping with a broad range of support for Terroism Movements against his enemies. For example he provided a safe Haven and funding for individuals involved in the 1993 World Trade Attack.

The Bush Administrative has never stated that there were operational links where Saddam and Al-Qaeda planned operations together. The Evidence is not that good. There are notes, where Al Qaeda suggests joint operations against the Saudis.

After the 9/11 Attacks the Strategic Outlook changed. Mutually Assured Destruction does not work against non-state actors who follow suicide tactics and have no well-defined home to destroy. The Bush Administration felt that the US could not wait for these non-state actors to obtain WMDs. Thus, a reasonable step was to premptively move against the States that support them and might provide access to WMD weapons or Technology. ITBlair (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove the stuff about how many "viewpoints" there are entirely until we can find a WP:RS that says there are two, or four, viewpoints on this. The "citation needed" tag on that section has been there a long time and nobody has come up with a citation; I think it is original research to make that claim, but I'd like to hear what others think. As for what the Bush admin said, I think the best thing to do is quote them directly and not go back and forth about whether they are claiming an "operational" link or not when Cheney says, for example, that Atta met an Iraqi diplomat in Prague.... Again, we wind up straying into original research when we try to interpret stuff like that. What we do know is that the senate concluded that there was only one actual meeting between Saddam's agents and al Qaeda's and that that meeting led to mutual hostility rather than cooperation. The other stuff in the above comment about MAD and WMD is an interesting opinion but it is irrelevant to improving the article -- let's not make this article about whether or not the Iraq war was a good idea; that will only lead to POV fighting back and forth with no real conclusion. csloat (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair Enough, we should eliminate all mention of viewpoints. I was keying off the Viewpoints section of this article. The viewpoints currently posited as a Cooperative Relationship (Undefined) and an Operational Relationship.

I should note that the small changes I made (and I believe deleted) in the Lead section came from the NY Times. This is a obvious WP:RS, even from a Liberal Viewpoint. The cited article pointed out the no one in the Bush Administration has every stated there were Operational Links. An operational link means that Al-Qaeda and Saddam joint planned and/or executed terror attacks. The theme of this article posits an operational link stated by Bush Admin., but no such statement was ever made. When Atta met an Iraqi diplomat is not an operational link, it is a proposed contact. One may or may not infer an operational link from such contacts. I agree that we should focus on the proposed Saddam and Al-Qaeda Contacts and Let the Wiki Readers make what inferences they feel appropriate. This means that the Lead Section has to be rewritten as a summary of contacts and then perhaps what different parties infer from these contacts.

I agree the WMD and MAD material as uncited does not improve the article. I think I can find some relevant citations from the Bush Administration and the Intelligence Agencies.

ITBlair (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re the viewpoints thing - I've always disliked that section as it does not reference any sources, and there are clearly more than two ways to think about the issue. But I think the info there is useful and that info could be presented in a manner that does not state that these are the only two viewpoints possible. As for the changes to the lead - I did not object to the NYT. My edit summary got cut off unfortunately but what I meant to say was that the information about "non-operational" links is already clearly spelled out in the article and in the timeline page -- it really doesn't belong in the lead, in my opinion. I also don't think it's accurate - the definition of "operational" could be debated, but I would think it includes funding, training, and planning attacks, all of which were asserted by the Bush Admin. As for "contacts," this article shouldn't be about "contacts" but about actual links. The Senate was able to confirm only one actual contact between Saddam and AQ and it ended in utter disaster on both sides. The lead should not be a summary of contacts but should rather be a summary of the conclusions of all official sources on this matter, which was that there were no links between Saddam and al Qaeda. Rewriting this to list "contacts" would be a massive POV shift that is at odds with the consensus of all intelligence agencies in the world as well as all journalists outside of a small clique writing in the Weekly Standard and National Review.
I urge you to read through the timeline page. Several people from radically different political viewpoints have worked on this article for a couple of years now and while the discussions were sometimes extremely adversarial, the result was very good -- an extremely detailed timeline that mentions every single possible "contact" that was raised by those who believe there were links between Saddam and al Qaeda alongside whatever other information is actually known about those alleged contacts. If you find anything missing in the timeline in terms of specific contacts, that would be the place to add it, I think. csloat (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ran Across a Democratic Web cite with a Summary of Quotes from the Bush Admin on both Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Although most of them seem to be after the Invasion.

http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

We might divide the discussion into (a) Contacts (we talked), (b) Links (funding, training, safe-haven, passports, conferences), (c) Operational Links (plan & execute operations). Some more context could be provided by a new Article on Saddam's (a) Contacts, (b) Links) and Operational Links to other Terrorist groups. It would provide some more context. Also, there is a question of proported contacts made before the war and then what the post-invasion analysis found. And then new Contacts found have the Invasion. ITBlair (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We might divide it that way, yes, but then we would be doing original research. Get this taxonomy published and then we can include it here, but we shouldn't impose a taxonomy on the literature that is not already described in the literature. csloat (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The theme of this article posits an operational link stated by Bush Admin, but no such statement was ever made. Post-invasion, the vice president said the connection between the 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and Saddam Hussein's government was "pretty well confirmed." [2] The State Dept. issued a background paper which advanced claims made by 'defectors' that Iraq had trained terrorists on how to hijack commercial aircraft using only simple weapons like knives at a facility near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. Post invasion, the vice president said: "We haven't really had the time yet to pore through all those records in Baghdad. We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions." [3] That's just off the top of my head. smb 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam - Oklahoma City

i skimmed through the talk archives and couldnt find if it was discussed anyplace prior to this. has anyone seen information on possible ties between iraq and the oklahoma city bombing? while i personally have not seen enough evidence to convince me of a credible link there are those that insist Ramzi Yousef was an iraqi agent and had ties with Terry Nichols. information places them both in Cebu Philippines at a meeting and some have theorized Terry Nichols may have also been involved in a plot to blow up 12 jetliners over the pacific in the 90s. i dont want to go digging all this stuff up if it has been discussed here already. the tie to al-qaida would be through his uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and that he was caught at an al-qaida safe house in pakistan. RodentofDeath 08:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about oklahoma city really don't belong in this article; I would check the articles about the Oklahoma City bombing and such. csloat (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weekly Standard Spin

I figured it was only a matter of time before someone did this. Sometimes I think the government releases these reports just to send Stephen Hayes into a tizzy. The mainstream media is reporting that this pentagon study found no links between Saddam and AQ. Each of the so-called links that Hayes mentions is already discussed and contextualized on the extensive timeline that we have developed with this page. If you find anything new there that belongs on the timeline feel free to add it there. But this page should deal only with the official conclusions, even if you feel those conclusions are wrong or being misstated by the mainstream media. The fringe opinion of Stephen Hayes is not really notable as part of these categories - we can include some of it on the timeline instead. Thanks! csloat (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How convienent it is that anyone who disagrees with you is "not notable"! Laurie Mylorie and Stephen Hayes are influencial within the administration and have had an effect on U.S. policy, whether you agree with them or not. The Truther article argues that Truther opinion should be taken seriously because 36 percent of the population subscribes to it. I suspect the number of Americans who believe Saddam was involved is higher than that. Is the 9/11 Commission report version, with 19 untrained hijackers doing their thing with minimal assistance, really notable or plausible either? Four of the hijackers used the names of people who died in Chechnya years earlier. We have no idea who they really were. Kauffner (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh please. That's not what I said and you know it. This page is not for fringe voices like Mylroie and Hayes -- they are both very well represented on the timeline page which is far more detailed. But this page reflects the conclusion of official investigations. Of course you're right that Hayes and Mylroie are notable in that they had an effect on the administration -- they bear some of the shame of the miserable failure that is this country's Iraq policy as a result. But that really isn't notable in terms of this page, which relates the conclusions of official investigations into the existence of ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda. I'm not sure what the truther stuff has to do with this page, but I do agree that a section on US public opinion polls would be useful here, or on the timeline. And to answer your other questions, yes, the 911 Commission conclusions are notable, and no, the opinions of random conspiracy theorists are not. csloat (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If something is believed by the American public by a margin of 41 percent to 33 percent,[4] is it still a "fringe opinion"? The belief that Saddam was involved in 9/11 is tbe principle reason Bush decided to liberated Iraq, at least according to Woodwood's Bush at War. But the conclusion you're likely to reach after reading this article is no one ever believed there was a link and it was just a big lie all along. Who decided the article was about official investigations? There are many, many references and links to material other than official investigations. There is a tape of Saddam telling an aide, "This [biological terrorism] is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq."[5] How do you suppose he knew that? Yet this article has nothing about anthrax at all.Kauffner (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hayes and Mylroie are fringe opinions among journalists and "experts." As I said above, I'd welcome information about the number of Americans duped by this nonsense, but I don't think we should fill this page with fringe opinions that are already well-represented on the timeline. Re-read the article if you are having trouble understanding it; your claim that "the conclusion you're likely to reach after reading this article is no one ever believed there was a link" is utter nonsense. The article is quite clear on who believed there was a link and even Dr. Mylroie is included there. As for the Saddam tape (yet another piece of evidence against Hayes et al), it is also discussed on the timeline as it should be. You ask who decided this page was for official investigations; that was the result of a consensus that developed as the separate timeline page was spun out -- it was too unwieldy and difficult to read to have everything on one page, so the minute details (like Saddam's comment, or like the court decision the anon editor below is whining about) were moved to a timeline page while this page was reserved for major official investigations and developments. One should not have to wade through all the stuff on the timeline just to find out the main thrust of what is known about this (non)relationship. As for anthrax, that just isn't the topic of this article at all. I'm not sure what your point is. (Maybe it refers to this, which is already cited in the article?) csloat (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

According the way the article is phrased now, Mylorie was “very influential among several top Bush Administration officials,” but “very few people share Mylroie's view.” This implies that her theories were promoted as a cynical gambit. This view is demonstrably false: Polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans at the time believed that Saddam and al-Qaeda were in cahoots. But the larger problem is that if you dismiss all the mainstream theories about the origin of the war as “nonsense,” you’re left without an explanation of why the world is the way it is. If the Saddam had no WMDs and no links with al-Qaeda, why did the U.S. send troops to Iraq? Did the Saudis pay Bush off, as Michael Moore argues? And why did Saddam fight when he could have just let the UN inspectors do their thing? Was he too dumb to know that he didn’t have WMDs? Kauffner (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could change that sentence to indicate that very few outside of those she duped in the bush admin shared her view. Personally I don't think it was a "cynical gambit"; I think Cheney and others believed Mylroie's theories were true until it became impossible to ignore how full of it she was. Again, please stop bringing up polls, they are not relevant here -- it doesn't matter how many Americans were duped. If you want a separate section for polls, gather the info and let's do it. Your various conspiracy theories about why the war started are intriguing, I suppose, but totally irrelevant here; all we know from the evidence is that there were no links to al Qaeda. WMDs are simply not the topic of this page (but I think the evidence also shows there were none of those; you ask why did Saddam fight; I would ask why didn't he -- if he had WMDs he never used them, and if he had ties to al Qaeda he never got them to do anything to help him out. Was he too dumb to know that he had WMDs?) Anyway it may be an interesting thought experiment but it has nothing to do with this page. csloat (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a whole page chock-full with voices like Hayes, Mylroie et al. Their influence has waned in the face of hard evidence, and surely it cannot have escaped your attention that they've little or zero credibility in this field today. A sizeable chunk of the population also believe in ghosts. Make of that what you will. smb (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If ghosts don't exist, how do you explain Dick Cheney?  ;) csloat (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

May I make some observations?

  1. Invoking public opinion is never a good way to ascertain the view that is held among experts. More specifically, we now know that the allegations Bush et all promulgated were not supported by any solid evidence. Clearly we can accept that what the intelligence agencies knew was not the same as what was told.
  2. Whatever the reason for invading Iraq, that is not a mandatory answer to establish the discrepancy from point 1.
  3. Regarding those reasons how about: 1 establishing a continuing state of emergency and a culture of fear to validate implementing the notion The Leader is doing important stuff and therefor should not be bothered with technicalities as the rule of law -something that already was judged to be illegal and certainly unwanted-, introducing what could be seen as a police state, keeping tabs on dissident voices, for details see the alleged blue-print to the war on terror 2 Increasing revenue for certain companies, i.e. Haliburton, Blackwater.

Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn’t matter whether “experts” agree with it, whether editors agree with it, or whether the general public agrees with it. Neoconservative opinion on this issue deserves a place in the article because it had a major impact on U.S. policymaking, at least if you assume that Bush and other policymakers held these views sincerely. How can a reader hope to understand the behavior of a conservative administration if the article treats conservative opinion as a fringe point of view, the equivalent of believing in ghosts? If I follow Norman Nescio response, you don’t need understand the neoconservative view because the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Bush just woke up on September 12, 2001 and decided he was a fascist.Kauffner (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Neoconservative opinion already has a place in this article and it is all over the place on the timeline article where such things belong. I don't see anything in the article speculating on what Bush decided when he woke up in the morning, or calling anyone a fascist -- can you please indicate which language in the article itself you are hoping to change? Thanks. csloat (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 court ruling

Let me be clear: I'm not against mentioning the court ruling, but it must be expressly made clear that R. James Woolsey's testimony (r.e. Salman Pak facility and Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection) is contradicted by FBI, CIA and DIA reports. Terror "expert" Laurie Mylroie also gave evidence at trial (r.e. the 1993 World Trade Center bombing). [6] On this basis, Judge Harold Baer, Jr. concluded...

"Although these experts provided few actual facts of any material support that Iraq actually provided, their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue, provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda." [7]

To assert that "The case remains the guiding legal decision on the topic in the US court system" is, quite frankly, laughable. So I'm rolling back until we can agree on balance. smb (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

House of cards smb (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The court ruling is already receiving appropriate mention on the timeline page. There is no reason to bring it up here as it relies entirely on testimony that has been found to be false, and there was no testimony by the "opposing side" during the trial. csloat (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether you choose to laugh, or not, the statement is fact. If as you claimed earlier the INC provided testimony, by all means add that with a source. The fact is in terms of legal standing this court decision is more important than anything else mentioned in the entire article. I'm replacing the section. If you continue to delete it I'm going to add a bias tag. --72.146.230.122 (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Whether you choose to laugh, or not, the statement is fact." No, it's not. The judgment is controversial because it rested almost entirely on false evidence. The case is not "the guiding legal decision on the topic in the US court system", as you claim. Rather, it was a one-off. So please stop adding unfounded statements to the page. smb (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)