Talk:Trial of Saddam Hussein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trial of Saddam Hussein article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)
Then correct the damn mistakes and don't make an entire subtopic. Taishaku
it was blocked from editing ok
Anon is correct and s/he could not edit the article as it was sprotected. Of course, if s/he had registered previously then yeah s/he would have been able to (HINT HINT). I believe it was eventually corrected but I didn't bother as I don't usually address issues that are in the top (again hint hint), sorry Nil Einne 05:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)


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)

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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

wow, what a load of tripe. American refers to your Nationality only, regardless of how you personally would like to delude yourself into defining your national character. Sad mouse 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

[edit] 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)

  • 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)
Lately, I found out in the December 31, 2006, issue of The Hartford Courant that the newly appointed judge on Iraq's appeals court was revealed to be Muneer Haddad. As it is stated, Haddad was the one who went on reading the verdict and the appeals court ruling following Iraqi law despite Saddam's raising his voice, minutes before being led to execution. Haddad must be the same judge who put a guilty verdict on Saddam on November 5, if my calculations are correct. You should go to The Courant online in order to find out more, okay? --Angeldeb82 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Protection?

I've replaced the vandalized content with http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)
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)
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.
I have also heard this said (on BBC Radio, which is reliable) - specifically that many other atrocities of Saddam were carried out with US weapons or collusion, and so despite being easier to prove were not included in the charges. Ben Finn 22:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
  • 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.
    • That's not a patronymic in a strict sense; Jackson is used as a surname. Andrew Jackson's father's given name was also Andrew. android79 17:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • compare the Icelanders, who likewise have no surnames, and refer to people by their first names also in formal contexts, and not by their patronymic. Also compare the Russians who have patronymics as well as surnames, and who use the patronymic only in conjunction with the first name. 130.60.142.65 19:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)


    • 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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)
I agree as well. There is only one trial. This should be moved back. - Tεxτurε 20:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] unattributed comment

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

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] rewrite of this needed

I've removed the following:

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] hmm

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

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)

[edit] ICC

  • The holding of a trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court in the Hague was suggested.
    • This is impossible, because the ICC statute gives the court jurisdiction only over those offenses that occurred following the treaty's entry into force. 24.54.208.177 04:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know if this is of any importance for this matter, but both Iraq and the USA are no ICC member states. 80.126.228.195 01:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Both previous statements can be verified by looking at the articles 11-13 of the "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court"
      • Sorta relevant**

The United States isn't a member of the ICC, for the same reason Israel isn't, namely that the heavily European and heavy middle eastern components of the Court would be biases agaisnt Israeli and American personnel and interests. I forget the name of the Belgian lawyer who is trying to get Colin Powell, Bill Clinton and both George Bushes tried as war criminals because of the embargo and the "oil for palaces" program. Additionly, I think it would probably be unconstitutional for the U.S. to submit to a foreign treaty that would subject American politicians and soldiers to International Law, since U.S. custom, U.S. law and the Constitution itself acknowledge only god and the people of the U.S. as soverign over the U.S. V. Joe 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Copyright violation

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)

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)
I've mentioned this on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#GFDL violation Nil Einne 13:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah...sorry, didn't see the source bit at the bottom. Time3000 14:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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)

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.

I'm not sure what is going on here, but for the record, I want Saddam to hang. With that said, I would like to know what Saddam's side was claiming. ?? perhaps, I didn't do it, or, witnesses are lying, or, evidence is fake ?? I heard Ramsey Clark, on the radio, make a claim like, we are not getting timely copies,of the evidence being soon offered to the court by the prosecution, or something like that.Does Saddam have anything else? CorvetteZ51 18:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe the only defense offered was something like, " I am S.H. the President of Iraq, and therefore soverign, which means, de jure that I am answerable only to god (in this case allah) for my actions." This is not as nutty as it sounds, and would probably hold up if S.H. was still in power , but de facto he has been deposed by force majeure which means that he isn't in power and is therefore no more immune than any other person. There doesn't appear to be any other rational (calling GWB and Tony Blair war criminals or blaming it all on the Jews is not considered a rational defense) defense offered whatsoever, and S.H. will probably swing. V. Joe 19:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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

Why can't we have a place to discuss (doesn't have to be here)? Personally, I favour capital punishment for a very limited number of murderers - people who are dangerous, unrepentant, contemptuous of life, and determined to escape lawful custody. I do not favour the death penalty for Saddam Hussein because I don't think he's particularly dangerous, and I don't see that anyone will be any safer if he's executed. Now, Clifford Olson in Canada - he's a man I wish could face the possibility of execution if I felt he was at risk of escaping - he IS dangerous to children. GBC 17:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think Saddam should "hang from the neck until dead." You can call it Victor's justice if you like, but it is Kuwait, the United Kingdom, Poland, and ESPECIALLY the United States who put forth the blood and toil, tears and sweat and treasure and should be allowed to try, and indeed, execute a war criminal, not France, Germany, Russia or Belgium (for example) that gave nothing to depose the villian, and indeed, actively sought to keep him in power. However, I am slightly to the right of Genghis Khan on the death penalty and on the war, but if anyone, ANYONE deserves to be executed it is Saddam... not just common muggers and murderers, who ALSO ought to be executed. V. Joe 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean the United States who helped install Saddam and keep him there for so long? Or the United States which gained significantly from the invasion of Iraq? Anyway all of this is OT and I won't discuss it anymore. Anon above is quite right. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss this. There are a lot of places in the internet that are but wikipedia is not one of them. Nil Einne 17:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Nil Einne 17:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Right you are, N.E., but... and BUT, I'll discuss things on the talk page, but this is the reason that I am not editing the article itself, since I have opinions that are strong to the point of pungent on Saddam. I am, however, watching for spell checks and that sort of very minor edit... plus I enjoy a good controversy, even from a distance (e.g.: the various fights over scientology). But I think you are right about the OT thing... Good work on the article thus far. V. Joe 18:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Nil Einne - how did the US "gain significantly from the invasion of Iraq?" What were the significant gains? Valtam 14:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd first point you here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf, "The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning and , the report states "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".
I'll not mention except in passing Halliburton, oil wealth and "bogeyman" political advantages. It's a very disputed topic, but i ask you to judge fore yourself whether you think america had perceived gains by invading, or if it was simply for the good of the human race. Provider uk
Hmm - gains, I'll give you. Minor ones, though. I haven't seen any checks yet going out to people as part of the "oil wealth"... Valtam 17:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Provider... It is much more economical to gain oil, for example by BUYING IT! then by putting out many billions and many lives for a period of some years. After all the Europeans and others were perfectly happy to buy oil from Saddam, embargo and all. If oil was the casus belli, the United States could simply have stopped enforcing the embargo, dependent upon the freedom of Kuwait and purchased as much oil as it wanted to, even if it had to through proxies. So whatever oil has been gained by the United States has been paid for through the nose. Mind, that also includes the other allies, especially Britain, Poland and Japan, all of which have money for any cash or carry. Additionally, the United States and Britain are actually fairly well off for oil compared to most Westernized countries (e.g. France, Poland or Japan) and most second world countries (e.g. India and Pakistan) or third world (Guatemala, say). Why do you think Japan hasn't tried to conquer the world, post-war? V. Joe 02:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Because it's morally wrong, perhaps? Badgerpatrol 03:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Its morally wrong, BUT Japan couldn't exist as the modern, successful state that it is today without access to oil, alumninum and the other resources that she does not possess. So she buys them. V. Joe 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The checks *have* been going out, to companies involved in the supply of weapons, that supply of food and resources to the american and brithish armies, and *buying* your oil doesnt give you any control, or a guarantee that you wont be out-bid for it by Russia or China when push comes to shove. And how can you say "Additionally, the United States and Britain are actually fairly well off for oil compared to most Westernised countries"? America could never pull enough oil out of their own turf to support their ecconomy in it's current state, comparisons to other oil-poor western countries dont change that, so what exactly does that statement mean? I'm not really after labouring this issue, it's just clear that *some* people gain, have gained and are gaining, as a direct result of the war. I find it nigh-on impossible to believe Bush really went to war to "protect the world from the (iraqi?) terrorist threat" (which is now worse than ever, racial hatred against westerners is at it's highest in decades) And i dont really see how you can question the significance of controlling the densest oil-yielding region in the world. Provider uk 10:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It is important, the oil flows... but its still sold to pay for said reconstruction... and some companies have done very well... but the United States as a whole has paid with the lives of 2000+ young women and men, along with trillions of dollars given to invade, occupy and improve the infrastructure of the country, all for oil that it sold on the open market. Its true that the United States cannot provide enough oil to meet its own needs, but it can also buy it from countries that don't require an invasion to give it up. Included are Mexico, Denmark (in Greenland), Russia, et alia. Also, Bush did not go out to protect the WORLD, he went out to protect the United States, the same as every American president swears to do. I don't know whose gaining, but the U.S. sure isn't, although oil prices have taken a dive recently because of vast discoveries in U.S. territorial waters in Alaska, and the increasing availibility of a supply from Russia, as well as increased use of Ethanol... If I had my way, we'd be doing the same thing as Brazil, with 30-50% of our oil supply coming from corn or other bio-matter. Its cleaner, cheaper, and you don't have to risk your economy on goodwill from a bunch of religous fanatics and corrupt princes... V. Joe 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
Aha. Quality journalism at its best... Badgerpatrol 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
Can we just remove the weasel words tag then? I just read through the article and couldn't find any weasly words...anyone care to point out an example of the weasle words in the article? CoolMike 00:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the tag - it was in reference to a number of unsourced claims in the Criticism section which were probably original research. Valtam 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of criticism from the intro

Loadmaster remove the criticism of the date from the intro here. I'm not going to re-add it as I had my doubts whether it was merited there I don't agree with his removal summary "removed criticism of verdict date duplicated in Criticism section". By definition most or the intro should be duplicated if my understanding of the intention of the intro is correct (see above). Indeed most of it is duplicated. This is because the intro is supposed to be a summary of the key issues in article. So there is nothing specifically wrong with duplication. Obviously when we're talking about a summary, we shouldn't include too much info and it often shouldn't be word for word but IMHO anyway, the fact that something is duplicated is no justification by itself for removing from the intro. The only question is whether it is important enough to merit mention in the intro/summary Nil Einne 17:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I explained the removal on this page, but my edits here got wiped (accidentally, I presume). To repeat, the sentence:
... the date in which the verdict was read live to the world, November 5, was deliberately motivated by the Bush Administration to influence the U.S. midterm elections scheduled two days afterward.
should be removed from the top (introductory sentences). It is criticism, and rightly belongs only in the Criticism section (where it is already present), and not duplicated in both places. The introductory section is not the place for POV, criticism, disputed facts, or speculation. — Loadmaster 17:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I have asked the user who removed your comment to take more care in the future. But back to the main issue... You might want to read Wikipedia:Lead section. As stated above, I myself wasn't particularly clear with the specific guideline when writing the above. But I have seen quite a number of articles including features articles where criticisms and controversys are mentioned in the lead and the guideline specifically states noteable controversies should be mentioned. I was quite correct that it is supposed to sumarise the main article. Ergo, everything in it should be repeated in the main article but in more detail as I expected. Interestingly everything in the lead is supposed to be sourced but nothing is in our lead (although most if not all of the facts are, in the main article). As I've stated, I'm not and am still not that the issue is noteable enough to be mentioned in the lead so I won't be re-adding it but you should still familarise yourself with the guidelines even if your removal was correct but for the wrong reasons Nil Einne 03:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This is going to seem OT but bear with me I'm going somewhere. I'm not an American but I was somewhat surprised (although not that surprised since it's something I've come to expect) that no one in the US really seemed to care about the date. However having read a bit more, it now appears that there has indeed been a great deal of controversy surrounding the date and alleged interference in setting it. However despite this, I still don't believe there is merit to mention the controversy in the lead. Although the issue may be quite noteable, it's not that noteable when it comes to the subject of the article. There is a lot of controvery surrounding the trial (although we currently don't really mention much of it, we need to find references and improve the article) and perhaps we should even briefly mention some of it in the lead.
However the date in particular only appears to be a minor issue at least to most observers of the trial. It doesn't directly affect the results (although Saddam's lawyer appears to be suggesting the verdict was rushed but then again this is irrelevant if court was just rubber stamping as he suggested). It does suggest US interference but there is other disputed evidence for this and the issue here is US interference not the date. The date is simply disputed evidence for the alleged interference and the controversial issue when it comes to the trial is US interference note the date. Ergo I don't really see any need to the date in the lead. It may very well be justified in other articles but not this article as it doesn't really concern the trial much Nil Einne 05:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
There is also, to a lesser degree, the fact that almost every major event in Iraq that could possibly make Bush look good has been questioned as "convenient timing" by his opponents. This included the killing of Uday and Kusay, the capture of Saddam, the siege on Fallujah, and now the conviction of Saddam. My point is that mentioning the criticisms of the timing of these events and others could get quite repetitious. When the criticism was included in the lead section, it just sounded like an obligatory slap at Bush, and disrupted the neutral tone of the article up to that point. Moving it to the Criticism section just seemed like the most practical and neutral thing to do. Another point to make is that the timing of the verdict is a minor part of the topic, not worthy of mentioning in the lead summary. If the timing somehow created a controversy about the verdict itself (e.g., its legality or whether it's the correct one or not), it would be worthy of mention, but it's not. — Loadmaster 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. Really I couldn't give a damn whether Bush looks good or bad, you just have to read a few of his statements to know he's an idiot and it's unfortunate a lot of people don't seem to notice or care. The point is that the issue of timing is very significant because if we do think they had a influence in the timing, this is another nail in the idea this was an independent Iraqi trial. The other events are rather different. Whether the capture of Saddam and killing of Uday and Kusay were set up doesn't really matter except perhaps to an American (although it would suggest the killing of Uday and Kusay was an executian/assasination). However if the US had influence on the timing of the verdict, then this is evidence they had influence in the trial and therefore, it cannot be considered a legitimate trial of an independent Iraqi judiciary. Also, as I mentioned, his lawyer complained that the verdict was rushed, and the suggestion that it may have been set up to help Bush supports this theory. (Although as I mentioned, I don't personally think it's relevant if you agree with his claim the court was just a rubber stamping tool.) I don't personally think it deserves mention in the lead, but it's quite a major part of the whole controversy and not just a minor issue Nil Einne 17:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other murders

Someone please add the assassinations of several of the judge's family memebers to this article. It seems lopsided that only the killings of the defense lawyers were mentioned. I remember seeing it on the news, but there's nothing about it here. 137.244.215.19 19:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi protection

Could someone Semi-protect this, The vandals are lining to deface this article. --Samuel 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously now, Is it legitimite?

I'm not entirely sure which legal jurisdiction this court is under. The U.S. wants it to be clear that it is neither under U.S. or 'international' jurisdiction, and I want to think this isn't a mere "we won the war - hooah!" show trial. But While I agree his acts in power were reprehensible, I can't see how they would actually have been illegal under Iraqi law. I just can't believe that at the time the acts were committed, and under the laws of the land at that time, his acts would have been illegal. It's just common sense to say that in Evil Dictators 101 class, they instruct all students to render the president above the law. And while it certainly is possible and likely that Iraqi law was changed after he was removed from effective power, retro-actively applying laws is not something that legitimate governmenst have a tradition of doing. Could someone clarify the details of the legitimacy of the laws he is being tried under? Rhialto 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a specific issue with the article you want to address? If not, you'll probably find there are much better places to debate the legitimicy or otherwise of the court. The talk page is intended for discussion of ways to improve the article etc not to do with the article subject Nil Einne 04:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't really read the whole article despite editing it quite a lot but my understanding is he was tried under Iraqi law. Saddam and his lawyers have made your point I believe, that what he was doing was not in violation of Iraqi law at the time but the court doesn't appear to consider this argument valid. Retro-actively applying laws is actually not as uncommon as you may believe even in democracies. In the end, the victors always get to make the laws. Whether that is fair or not, well there is no point debating that here. Most of the issues are discussed in the article so you should read it. If you come across areas in the article which you think need improvement (such as if the article doesn't address issues you feel it should address) then you're welcome to make suggestions. However if you just wish to debate these issues some more or you still don't understand the issues but the article appears to address them well enough, I suggest you look elsewhere as the talk page is intended for discussing improvements to the article. Nil Einne 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, considering the high level of publicity surrounding this trial, and the many accusations of it being a show trial, both by Saddam as you mentioend, and by many outside observers, I think it is farcical that an article of this length gives a single sentence to noting such issues. It isn't giving that issue the air time it should be given. I don't want to debate the legitimacy of the trial. I want the article to make a fair note of the contentions people have with regard to the legitimacy of that court, and the specific reasons why it was decided to try him under domestic Iraqi law, and the specific reasons why other jurisdictions were not considered. Rhialto 05:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Since this article is about the actual trial itself, perhaps the topic being suggested here (the legitemacy of the trial) should have it's own article? Shouldn't be too hard too find cites...--Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Whatever NGO's, or indeed any parties not involved with the trial itself have completely irrelevant opinions about the trial itself. Plus, to be honest, there wasn't and isn't any doubt that Saddam would be convicted (for one thing, he hasn't attempted any "real defense," except to complain that the court had no right to try him), provided he lived long enough for a verdict to be announced. (e.g. Milosevic) If his appeal is succesful, I imagine that he will be handed over to the Kuwatis who will promptly try him in a court martial and do the deed with a sword instead of a rope.... but I digress. We should have a seperate article section for criticism. V. Joe 13:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
"Whatever NGO's, or indeed any parties not involved with the trial itself have completely irrelevant opinions about the trial itself.". Why is this? Badgerpatrol 13:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It is simply a matter of practical influence. The Queen of Norway, however intresting or distinguished she is, or Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand have all the right in the world to comment on world matters, but have no actual influence on the court desicion or on the affairs leading up to said desicion (i.e. they neither supported the war or sought actively to prevent it. Like Russia, Belgium, France, et alia.). That applies equally and as surely to such humanitarian concerns as Human Rights Watch or the Audobon Society, neither of which is an Iraqi judge, nor are involved in the conduct of the conflict. V. Joe 17:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to confess, I can't quite grasp your point. Anyone with experience and/or expertise in this or related fields (i.e. diplomacy, international or local law, human rights, etc etc) has an obvious right to relevent comment. I would suggest that Heads of State or government, international NGOs, and legal authorities would all come under that banner. One is unlikely to find much criticism originating from those running the court that passed the sentence- that is not to say that such criticism does not exist or is somehow invalid. I do not quite understand why practical influence (assuming that those parties to whom you refer lack influence, which is debatable) need be a prerequisite for contributing valid, reasoned criticism- quite the reverse in fact, since the judgement of unrelated, independent parties is usually considered to have more weight. I see no obvious relationship between potential influence and the validity of one's judgement. Badgerpatrol 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Everybody as a right to comment, which I believe I said. I just don't think that the article really needs to mention what Helen Clark or the Taoseich has to say is particularly important to anyone, except voters in thier home countries. However, if Tony Blair, for instance says something agaisnt the trial, its much more important since his country (nation-state) has actual stakes in the outcome of said trial. My objection isn't to the P.M. of Canada or the P.M of New Zealand or the Presidente de Mexico offering commentary, its the idea of the spectators to this conflict getting the same weight as the participants and those immediately affected, unless somebody says something completely crazy, in which case all bets are off. If Chirac, for instance, was to order French ships to burn, sink and destroy all Iraqi commerical assests in punishment for the trial of his "personal friend" or named Saddam the Marshal of the of the Republic or some other absurdity or the King of Belgium was to name him a knight of the Elephant... Then it would be rather noteworthy. I simply think that criticism should be a seperate article, lest it drown out the facts of the case, which do not include the efforts of European and South American politicians to "Rock out the Vote" or spit at Uncle Sam and John Bull. That will drown out the important historical facts of the case, namely that S.H., having been found guilty by a panel of Iraqi judges for various and sundry crimes agaisnt humanity, has been sentenced to death, awaiting appeal, and thirty days after the failure of the last appeal, to "hang by the neck until dead." By all means, discuss the historical background of the case, "agaisnt widespread continental European and international opposition, the Allies (The U.K., the U.S. and a number of other states) deposed Sadam Hussien and the Baathist party in Iraq, and despite continuing difficulties..." but do not let grandstanding by third parties drown out the facts of the case. V. Joe 13:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I think it is always useful to gain an independent perspective on events, particularly from those outside of one's home country. I do not agree that the criticism/int. reaction sections are in any danger of "drowning out the facts"- in fact, that material sees to me to be quite concise at the moment. Removing such material to another article- except where pressure of space absolutely necessitates it- should be avoided, since it would render the remaining material inherently POV. ALL Wikipedia articles MUST be balanced, and it is entirely fair and proportionate that space be given to referenced criticism and international reaction. I don't personally see how many of the quoted sources (such as the Vatican, the Irish PM, the Canadian PM, the EU et al.) are likely to wish to take an opportunity to "spit at Uncle Sam" or, for that matter "John Bull" (a figure usually regarded btw as a personification of England alone, rather than the whole of the UK). Speaking personally, I *am* interested in the views of foreign leaders (whcih I would not in any way describe as "grandstanding"- can you explain why you think this?) and foreign citizens, and much more importantly, I feel that such material is inherently encylopaedic and it is perfectly sensible to include it. I would also note that almost everyone quoted is broadly supportive of the verdict, if not the sentence, as one would expect. Badgerpatrol 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree, it is useful to gain an outside perspective... but I think it would be best if the criticism and international comment was either muted or given its own section. However, you are right in that I don't think most of the sources are especially eager to attack Uncle Sam. However, I am quite sure that Castro, Hugo Chavez, Abbas, (not to mention the home grown types like Jimmy Carter) etc, will cheerfully do just that about Saddam's conviction and subsequent execution. I am intrested in the views of foreign leaders when it concerns either there or own countries, or have some relevance to the events they talk about. It costs the Tasoich (not that I have anything agaisnt that worthy person. ) or some other dignatary nothing to comment adversly on matters that don't really concern them, but it could garner votes in the European Parliament or thier own local elections, so that is why there are so many leaders throughout Europe who are happy to talk about the trial "more in sorrow than in anger" while they happily executed collaborationists by the score after WWII. (Yes, I am 100% aware that Ireland was not an official participant in WWII) That is what I meant by grandstanding. The reason that it should a stub article is because the thoughts of international leaders outside the reigon, and not involved in the conflict should be cataloged in a secondary section. V. Joe 19:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Quick Note, in re: spitting. It is however, likely that the Canadian PM is not above a little America bashing, since Canadian foreign policy, especially after the cold war has largely been based on a policy of "pro-UN" and opposition to American Foreign policy. With the happy exception, of course, of Brian Mulroney and of the Canadian reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Likewise, the Vatican has opposed the Invasion and subsequent opposition, at least publically. (Render onto Caesar...) and New Zealand's foreign policy has been rather similar to Canadas, since the Viet Nam war. V. Joe 19:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The international reaction portion of the article is already in a separate section. I think I am beginning to see where we differ. Constructive, rational and informed criticism of the trial, the war, or the current bleak situation is not America bashing. I agree that "America bashing" as you call it has no place in the article, except if placed clearly in context, and unreasonable criticism should certainly not have any prominance at all. As it stands, it doesn't. (Btw, isn't Jimmy Carter a former President of the United States? Is he also an "America basher"? Is pro-UN now some kind of slang-synonym for Anti-American? I was not aware of this.). As you correctly point out, Ireland had nothing to do with, for example, the Nuremburg trials, which were an international tribunal conducted in peacetime and (obstensibly) due process. Collaborators in mainland Europe and Britain were also tried under due process (although of course I do not doubt the probability of extra-judicial killings). A similar standing court now exists in The Hague I believe, although for whatever reason that apparatus was not used to try Saddam and the others. And (although I recognise that this isn't the place for commentary), on a historical note regarding 9/11- virtually everyone across the world condemned those attacks (which, as we all know, had nothing to do with Iraq or the current situation). My understanding is that Canadian troops are currently fighting and dying in Afghanistan. It is poignant and unsettling to recall the headline of Le Monde on September 12th, and compare it with the situation today. Badgerpatrol 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I realize that Carter is a former POTUS, but he is perfectly willing to be a useful idiot for anyone who wants to complain about his predeccesors (Republican or Democratic). Consider his record with Arafat or with Castro. I do wish he'd settle into the kind of quiet retirement of the sort enjoyed by Papa Bush or Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Eisenhower, Truman, etc. It think Carter has never stopped being bitter for losing so handily to a man he thought was a knuckledragging neandrthal. So yes, I count Carter as a bad guy, just as I account other apologists for Castro, Saddam, Milosevic, etc, like Ramsay Clarke.
I appreciate the service of Canadian troops (particularly the Princess Patricia regiment and the German troopers as well), but those are hardly the vast armies employed by Canada during WWI and WWII, or even a portion of there abilities. Numbers are part of the game, and if you looked up numbers, the U.S. troops are at least 80% of the Afghani occupation and 75% of the Iraqi occupation, with most of the remainders deployed by the British. U.S. and British soldiers and Marines are also basically the only soldiers employed in areas of major combat (e.g. Baghdad, Fallujah and Tikrit). Afghanistan is much more mixed, but the U.S. is still providing the bulk of the troops and equipment. (Rather like the Korean War, although on a vastly smaller scale). I disagree about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11... although it was not an Iraqi operation (we THINK), Saddam's regime celebrated it, helped to plan further attacks and had supported terrorism in the past. Indeed, there was even a mock-up of several commericial airplanes in several Iraqi airfields, all of which predated 9/11. You are right about Le Monde, but on the other hand... 9/12 was more of the exception, and today's French media is more alike 9/10s media than 9/12s
And yes, the U.N. is largely an anti-American organization, when it isn't busy being an anti-Zionist or an attempt to line Kofi Annan's pockets. The United States is the nation most reviled in the General Assembly besides Israel, and the U.N. is also anti-American in the sense that it is undemocratic, unaccountable to any national body and permits Democratic-Republican South Korea and Switerzland to precisely the same rules (i.e. no rules) as it does the Sudan, Cuba and the Vatican (and no, the Pope is not a villian, but he is certainly not a democrat, either). So no, I am not a fan of that august body, and I'm tired of subsidizing it as well. V. Joe 03:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The above statement is blatantly POV, and I suggest it be ignored. Rhialto 04:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, nobody's views should be ignored, regardless of whether we agree with them. Joe, you obviously have your own point of view and this is not the place to debate these issues. Suffice it to say, I disagree with you! I've never come across complaints by Carter about his predecessors (although since the last two before him were the rather unspectacular Gerald Ford and the obviously infamous Nixon, I wouldn't necessarily blame him if he did have some fairly negative things to say). Again, I must make the point here that you seem to equate criticism with enmity (e.g. Carter is a "bad guy"); I see constructive criticism and alternative viewpoints as a good thing, provided they are well-founded. As for the rest; "we think" 9/11 was not an Iraqi planned operation in the same way that "we think" the Moon is not made of cheese- because there is no evidence for it whatsoever and plenty of evidence to the contrary. There is also no evidence that the atrocities were perpetrated by, for example, The Federated States of Micronesia, or at least there is much evidence for their involvement as Saddam's. I haven't seen any evidence that the Iraqi government was behind any terrorist attacks or was a material supporter of terrorism. In fact, given that the themes of modern international terrorism are often related to religious extremism, and that the government of Saddam was entirely secular (and hated for it), I find any colloboration very difficult to envisage. As for troops etc- I'm not going to comment on specifics, but surely you recognise that is rather unfair to expect nations who were opposed to a war (which was fought on a basis that we now know is demonstrably incorrect) to contribute soldiers and risk their citizens' lives wastefully. The Afghanistan invasion, which did have broad international support, does indeed have a much more rounded international coalition, including (at least in the recent past, I am not familiar with numbers) large numbers of French and German troops. Although the situation there is very fragile, it is certainly a lot better than the ongoing tragedy in Iraq. We can all draw our own conclusions from that, although there are no glib answers. I don't agree that the US is the most reviled nation in the General Assembly, which is, let's not forget, a collection of delegates from almost every country in the world. If the current US government is unpopular (and it is a great and oft-made mistake to conflate criticism of the US government or its actions with "America bashing") then we might consider why that is. I also don't agree that the UN is anti-Zionist. As for the money, the US pays its share like everyone else, and like everyone else, they can leave and isolate themselves further if they want to. I humbly suggest (and this is merely my own personal opinion, I make no claims as a commentator on internal US politics) that one lesson from the debacle in Iraq, the fragile situation in Afghanistan and the ongoing crises over N. Korea and Iran, all punctuatd by yesterday's domestic election thumping, might be that what is in fact needed is more engagement with the international community, not less. Anyway, apologies to all for taking up this space which I recognise should be used to discuss improvements to the article. Badgerpatrol 04:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The U.S. leave the UN? It would immediately go broke, 60-80% of the U.N. budget is paid for by the United States, and would also be instantly homeless, especially since the City of New York would be quite happy to own what is now the U.N. revert back to it. Plus, I don't think any engagement with the U.N. is anything but a waste of time and money, at least the general assembly.

V. Joe 15:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When I speak of Carter's predeccessors, I should have said successors. It pleases you to speak facetiously, but his special relationships with Castro and Arafat are well known. Like I said before, I do have a POV, which I haven't added to the article
I'm certainly not accusing you of adding POV to the article, and I wasn't speaking facetiously. Thank you for the clarification however. Badgerpatrol 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
According to this current article in a "center right" US newspaper[8], the US contribution to the UN budget is 22%, 3% higher than the second greatest contributor, Japan at 19%. I'm not an economist, but this seems to me to be almost exactly right given the relative size of the US economy (although I suspect Japan and some others are overpaying). Do you have a source for your "60-80%" claim? If the UN needs a new base then I'm sure one can be found- the first meeting of the GA was, as I recall, in the Methodist Central Hall in London. Should the US withdraw its invite to host the UN headquarters, I'm sure space could be found in Tokyo, or in Paris, or Berlin, or London, or elsewhere. It strikes me that what some in the current US government really want is not a UN that is actually fair and even handed per se (and I'm not a rose tinted optimist; like all large organisations, the UN has flaws, and major flaws they are too) but rather a UN that constantly does what America wants, regardless of the actual facts. One recent example of this dichotomy was of course the recent Iraq war, where the Security Council were subsequently proved to have considerably more wisdom collectively than the US govt. did on its own. Howenever, this is getting us further and further away from the Saddam trial article, so I shall stop there! Badgerpatrol 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
In which way did the security counsel do anything but delay action? I fail to see how that was wiser in any way. Also, the war isn't really over... but it has been more difficult that was anticipated... but you are right, lets abandon this dicussion, since we have both failed to convince each other... but I am perfectly willing to discuss things either on user talk pages or to forgoe it alltogehter. V. Joe 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The case for the war was WMD. The suggestion of most of the world's nations was that slightly more time and effort should be given to weapons inspectors so that they might be allowed to find confirmation that these actually existed. We may now suspect that one reason the inspections didn't work is because it is much harder to prove a negative ("absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and all that) rather than prove a positive. Every rational person now concedes that there were no WMD and that the case for war was false. It is always wiser to delay action until one is 100% sure that one is correct; in fact, support for the war was really built on the trust of the people in their government; we were told emphatically (at least here in the UK, perhaps in the US also) that there was voluminous, overwhelming and convincing evidence for Iraq's WMD programme that had to be kept classified and frustratingly could not be shown (to paraphrase: "if only you could see what comes across my desk each day..." etc). This was the excuse behind the fairly paltry state of the evidence that was shown, which amounted to not a great deal more than some satellite pictures of lorries ("mobile WMD factories") and the word of a few lying Iraqi dissidents. In fact, it seems that this "hidden evidence" did not exist, or at least was no less ambiguous than that publicly presented. Whether the war itself was actually right or not is a matter of opinion; but there can be no doubt now that the case for war, as it was stated, was false. There are no WMD in Iraq; there is no link between Iraq and terrorism. These are facts,not opinion. I fully agree that sadly the war in Iraq is not over and probably not even nearly over. The real tragedy is the probability that innocent people will continue to die in droves long after international troops have left the country. I'm desperately afraid that this conflict will go on, in one form or another, for years if not decades. Iraq, which was already in a very poor state, is now a ruined country. There is the legacy of the war. Anyway, feel free to transplant this off-topic debate to your talk page or mine if you wish to continue it, it's up to you. Badgerpatrol 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And Media publication of this grand event?!

Are they going to show his execution on TV? That would be cool!--Johnston49er 06:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In a word "NO" V. Joe 13:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for that? I would think Iraqi TV might broadcast it live... Valtam 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't, but I'm still pretty that "live" capital punishment is unlikely. Some might consider Middle Eastern justice as fairly barbaric, but they will probably take still life pictures of the remains as is standard in such cases of "charlie will come again". For example, although there is probably combat video of the 10th Mountain bagging Uday and Qusay, and the remains were shown, the film video of the combat, to my knowledge has not been released for public consumption. This is probably a shame, since it would show the world that he cannot come back, and will weaken the Baathist diehard portion of the insurgency. Cheers V. Joe 17:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
But this is a different situation - Uday and Qusay died (presumably) indoors, out of the public eye, when their safehouse was stormed; also, the only people on-hand to record their deaths were part of the U.S. military.
The Saddam execution will be an official, state-sponsored event, and hangings are traditionally done outdoors. Even if the Iraqi government doesn't broadcast the event, I would presume Iraqi tv, Al Jazeera, or even a random Iraqi citizen with a video camera could/would record the event. Valtam 18:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This event might even be worthy of coverage by The National Enquirer. — Loadmaster 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Valtam, you might be right, I kinda knew that... but on the other hand... The new government might decide to be more discreet and have S.H. executed in the same way that the Nuremberg defendents were, with a limited number of (mostly allied millitary and Nuremberg jurists) witnesses and then have someone take pictures of S.H. on the slab. I don't know, but we can be sure that it will not be shown on most Western televison. The main reason most executions (In Western countries that practice capital punishment) are now private are the spectactular and gruesome accidents that can happen to the victims, especially the hung... Consider it like the difference between a Kennedy wedding and the weddings of the rest of us mere mortals (He speaks with some irony) V. Joe 02:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

Could some add this? There appears to be some dispute between the Iraqi officials and US officials over when the execution needs to take place. [9] I think this is important because although strictly speaking, this isn't part of the trial, it is likely to be seen by some as evidence that the US has undue influence. (Would myself but need to sleep) Nil Einne 22:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

I would like to see a vote on merging this with the execution of saddam hussein page, to create a Trial and Execution of Saddam Hussein page.. thanks! Crocitto49 21:56, 19 January 2007 (EST)

No, 2 different things totally!

[edit] Death sentence for Ramadan

I have the news that Taha Yassin Ramadan was sentenced to death by hanging on February 12, 2007. Here's the link if you want to know more about it, okay? --Angeldeb82 23:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)