Talk:Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal

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

I can confirm that the head of the tribunal is NOT Ammar al-Bakri. There is the president of the court, the administrative officers, who wields relatively little significant power under the October 2005 statute, and each trial chamber also has a presiding judge. Unfortunately the article is somewhat confused about the nature and importance of each of these positions. The first president of the court was an eminent Iraqi jurist who died of natural causes in July 2006.

Can someone confirm that Ammar al-Bakri is the head of the tribunal, as opposed to just the lead judge? Also the only source I can find that names al-Bakri, is a report on the Voice of the Mujahidin radio station. AlistairMcMillan 16:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Impartiality[edit]

This page is biased and does not represent true fact.

It accepts a very partial view that trying Saddam incountry is normal. Indeed it is not. This trial of a former president is exceptional.

Recent precedent of the former Yugoslavia dictates that Saddam should be before the ICC in the Hague or in a UN tribunal.

Useful Source[edit]

Without commenting on any bias the article may or may not have, or commenting on any of the factual material in the article, or responding to anything on the talk page, I highly recommend that anyone wishing to contribute to this article (okay, I will comment on one thing: the article needs some updates and other work) refer to the Grotian Moment Blog from Case Western Reserve University Law School, content for which is written by experts on international law, human rights law, Islamic law, and Iraqi law.

I am precluded from contributing material on this topic, but I encourage whoever reads this to take the initiative of reading the blog and updating the article. This is certainly an article which will be read frequently, and it deserves special attention to the various social and legal implications of the Tribunal (which is known under a different name now, the Iraqi High Criminal Court is the most frequent translation into English).

Ari 22:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest this article is merged with that titled "Iraq Special Tribunal" and that it be cross-reference to the tribunal's new title, which is most commonly known as the High Iraqi Tribunal (HIT).

Move[edit]

Propose move from Iraqi Special Tribunal to Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal.

Human Rights Watch describes the situation like this:

The Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST Statute) was promulgated as an Order of the CPA on December 10, 2003 In early August 2005, the IST Statute was revoked by Iraq’s Transitional National Assembly, and replaced by a statute establishing the SICT

See also [1] and [2]. AndrewRT - Talk 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Response[edit]

"This page is biased and does not represent true fact."

What is true fact and what is not? If you are going to make that statement then qualify it with examples. This page presents information which could be biased, but you need to qualify your statements better. For example, I find term "ethnic cleansing" objectionable as it was created by members of the United Nations (UN) who did not wish to act regarding numerous humanitarian crises. It is a euphamisim for *genocide* and if the UN had formally identified and and acknowledged that geonocide was taking place their Charter would compel them to act.

"It accepts a very partial view that trying Saddam incountry is normal. Indeed it is not. This trial of a former president is exceptional. Recent precedent of the former Yugoslavia dictates that Saddam should be before the ICC in the Hague or in a UN tribunal."

Since members of the UN include countries that had a financial interest in the continuation of Saddam's government, his trial in the Hague or by the UN, would also not necessarily be impartial as it might bring to the fore embarrassing facts which many European countries would not want widely known, such as their reported back door deals involving cheap oil, or the construction of military facilities by German companies using Philippine laborers. The United States certainly is not blameless in this matter either and I would never suggest that my own country tries the former Iraqi dictator. Do not forget that the US government supported Saddam against Iran at one time. If the people of Iraq want to continue to move beyond years of official repression then they need to confront their own demons in the form of men like Saddam. I will definitely grant that anyone in Iraq would be hard pressed to find someone who is totally impartial.

Out of date[edit]

Right now, this al-Dujail trial section in this article seems to be out of date. Right now it needs cleanup! Can you be so kind as to fix the article for me? I'll be happy to oblige. --Angeldeb82 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Târiq ´Azîz death verdict[edit]

The Court condemned former Foreign Minister T. ´A. zu death by hanging. Cf. article Tareq Aziz and Jean BENJAMIN's Book Iraq, written fall 2015. Why no word about that verdict?

Nuremberg BAVARIA - Ángel.García2001 84.138.71.192 (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fisk[edit]

Robert Fisk is a reliable source, and CounterPunch is not deprecated. I am again restoring it as a reliable source. nableezy - 16:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the claim that CP is a 9/11 conspiracy site is horseshit. nableezy - 16:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fisk was very controversial, and the site he is writing in also holds 9/11 conspiracies. In https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/09/02/lies-about-how-the-attack-on-afghanistan-started/ this CounterPunch site says the CIA was behind 9/11.--Floral suffrage (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the Independent friend. nableezy - 16:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calton you removed the Independent, and that is written by Robert Fisk. So, yeah, seriously, yes. nableezy - 12:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this talk when editing to leave Independent and remove CP. If the two articles are the same, we should cite the stronger one not the weaker one. Worth noting Fisk's piece is an opinion piece (filed in the "Voices" section of the Independent, not in the news section, and so not subject to the same level of fact-checking as their news reportage. Therefore still needs attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is and was attributed to him.Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Im fine removing CP. Fisk is himself a reliable source, I dont think that needs attributing for a statement of fact. nableezy - 15:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSOPINION: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. As Selfstudier notes, it's already attributed, so it's fine as it is. Just wanted to make sure people noticed that it was an opinion piece, as Fisk is published in both sections in the Independent: under "Voices" for his columns which are opinion pieces and therefore edited by the opinion section editors, and under "news" for his reportage, edited by the foreign news desk, which we can treat as reliable for facts without attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be responding to a point nobody made. It is not opinion on whether or not Ra’id Juhi was the judge, or if he worked for Paul Bremer or anything else that Fisk is cited for. Those are all facts. Yes, if Fisk was relaying his opinion then we should be attributing that opinion. But those are not opinions, and if you feel that Fisk is not a reliable source for those facts then say that. I am of the view that a noted journalist with several works on the modern Middle East and widely cited on the topic is an appropriate source for that fact. If you disagree then just say that, but RSOPINION is about citing people's opinions. This is not that. nableezy - 19:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't trying to have an argument, just to clarify. RSOPINION is about citing opinion pieces as sources for facts. Reliability is case by case, factoring in work, author and publisher. Different works by the same author have a different status. This is an opinion piece. It's obviously stronger than an opinion piece by someone who is not a Middle East expert and it's stronger than an almost identical work published by a less well regarded publisher, but it's not as strong as a news piece by the same author. I think we're all agreed current version of our text in that paragraph is fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are these facts? If Fisk is not a reliable source for those facts, including in an opinion piece, he should not be cited for it. When Fisk is relaying his opinion, as in the lines No, I think Saddam knew. I think he regarded brutality as strength, cruelty as justice, pain as mere hardship, death as something endured by others. then yes of course attribute his opinion. But when he relays facts, like , he was Ra'id Juhi, a 33-year old Shia Muslim who had been a judge for 10 years under Saddam's own regime, a point he did concede to Saddam later in the hearing without telling the world what it was like to be a judge under the dictator. He was also the same judge who accused the Shia prelate Muqtada Sadr of murder last April, an event that led to a military battle between Sadr's militiamen and US troops in the holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala. Mr Juhi, who most recently worked as a translator, was appointed - to no one 's surprise - by the former US proconsul in Iraq, Paul Bremer. then either he is reliable for that or he is not. Attributing for statements of fact is not what WP:RSOPINION means, it means opinions are not reliable for facts. My view is that Fisk himself is reliable to relay those facts, and we as editors are able to discern between his opinion and what he reports as fact. nableezy - 14:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"we as editors are able to discern between his opinion and what he reports as fact" This I think is right, it is only for the sake of simplicity that we attribute to Fisk because his article is an "opinion piece" but there should not be any suggestion that Fisk is unreliable for facts, on the contrary.Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSOPINION seems very clear to me: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion." This is an opinion piece in a mainstream newspaper, which is reliable as a source on Fisk's opinion but not so on facts about Iraq. For facts, it's better to use news pieces if possible; if there aren't any we should attribute. Which we do, so it's all fine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, Bob, Fisk is himself a "source" (per V) independently of his writing an opinion piece (a source) for a publisher (also a source). RSOpinion is about opinions not facts. If Fisk said the sky was blue yesterday, I would not feel any necessity to write "According to..." in such a case. Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, you can assume Ive read RSOPINION and dont need to bold it twice, especially given I am responding to what it says. You seem to be missing my point here. If you are saying that Fisk is not reliable for the statement of fact that the judge was Juhi or that he was a translator or previously appointed by Hussein then say that. But we are not relaying Fisk's opinion here about anything. We are relaying a fact, and Fisk is either a reliable source, in which case the attribution is unnecessary, or he is not in which case it should be removed. You want to address that at all? Because you keep quoting from something that is not relevant here. Yes, this is an opinion piece, and if you want to argue that as such it is not reliable for facts then just say that. But what we are citing Fisk for is not his opinion on anything. nableezy - 17:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for repeating the extract from RSOPINION. I forgot I'd already posted it. But Selfstudier says "RSOpinion is about opinions not facts", which is contradicted by the bit I bolded. We wouldn't need to use an opinion piece for "the sky was blue yesterday" because there'd be plenty of reliable sources we could use for this; if this statement is true, it'd be better (and presumably not difficult) to find a source we don't need to attribute. In the meantime, our policy is to attribute. I don't understand why this is controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It also says in the bit you didn't bold "When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author" the opinions, not facts. I think we can just leave it there, don't you? Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point here is this, yes this is in the opinion section of the Indy, and if on that basis you want to say that this falls under what RSOPINION says A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers then the correct course is to remove the source and remove the information, as I personally have yet to be able to find other sources on it. But if we accept that a professional journalist with decades of experience in the region and author of several works in the general topic if not Iraq specifically is reliable for that fact then we just cite him for the fact the end. Yes, this is according to Robert Fisk, but it is not Robert Fisk's opinion of anything, and if you feel like this is not a suitable source for facts then remove it entirely. I do though. Not so much that Id push for it at RSN, but enough that Ill try to convince you to remove the attribution as superfluous to the citation as we are not relaying any opinion in the sentence at all. nableezy - 05:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Iraqi_Criminal_Tribunal&oldid=1201482191"