Jump to content

Talk:Abu Omar case

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

Comments

[edit]

The Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr article speaks of his "alleged abduction" throughout. Here his abduction by the CIA is presented as a fact. I don't know how well established it is if and by whom he was abducted, but Wikipedia should be consistent across articles.

Merge of Robert Seldon Lady, Eliana Castaldo and Joseph L. Romano‎ & other bios

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was do not merge into Abu Omar case . -- DarkCrowCaw 18:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Lady isn't known for anything else but being the CIA station chief involved in this rendition, I propose merging his bio into this page. He's basically a person known for only one event, and practically all of the content in his bio is redundant to what is on this page. Per WP:BLP1E, we shouldn't have a separate article about him. Fences&Windows 04:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There doesn't seem to be any assertion of notability besides this story, and all the info can be rather easily merged. Joshdboz (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't merge Ziad Jarrah and Hani Hanjour into 9/11. A random convicted felon may not warrant an article, but when said convicted felon is a CIA station chief whose criminal charges caused an international affair for several years...I think he's notable. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify, I oppose merging RSL and Joseph Romano, I don't oppose merging Eliana Castaldo since no tertiary information seems to exist about her. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Also Eliana Castaldo, Sabrina De Sousa, Jeffrey W. Castelli, and Joseph L. Romano. None of them have received coverage for anything but their involvement in this case. Fences&Windows 17:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the merger of Sabrina De Sousa, as she is notable for her lawsuit against the US Government, which is a sequelae of the Imam rapito affair and not directly part of it. Bearian (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also oppose De Sousa and Castelli based on their prominence. So I oppose all merges, except Castaldo which I support merging. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 22:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All Sabrina De Sousa is known for is suing to avoid being tried in this case. All the news coverage stems from this one thing, so surely BLP1E applies. These separate bios are magnets for adding fringe conspiracy material, etc., and totally fail to give a balanced view of the individuals. Fences&Windows 01:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this page should be merged into the affair page - she's only notable for this one thing.Pär Larsson (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. De Sousa is notable both for her involvement in the kidnapping and for all the legal issues which arise from her diplomatic status and trial, which are separate from the kidnapping. Thus, merger is inappropriate. See this Washington Post article -- which also linked to De Sousa's Wiki page. -- AyaK (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nuremberg Defence

[edit]

Should there be a link to Nuremberg Defense in this article? Robert Seldon Lady is quoted as saying "I'm not guilty. I'm only responsible for carrying out orders that I received from my superiors". The definition of a Nuremberg defense is:

"The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes"

Is Nuremberg defense a loaded term? The article on the defense does not claim this, but some people may feel it is 198.240.128.75 (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aother option may be to link to Superior Orders 198.240.128.75 (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuremberg Defense was linked in that very sentence up until recently, when it was removed with the edit summary "thats a tad loaded and unless a relibale source has made this comparison, whe shouldnt either". I am neutral as to whether it should be included or not (i.e. I don't mind either way), but I agree with WVBluefield that we should see if a reliable source has made that comparison before we do. Dreaded Walrus t c 15:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search and spotted this article http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/75df7d7ab3813400bcc45d88a741b510.htm. It claims the lead prosecutor in the case made the comparison:
"In his final argument before the court, lead prosecutor Armando Spataro made a powerful argument for holding government officials accountable for grave human rights abuses, including those committed in fighting terrorism. Referencing the reasoning of the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal, he rejected the claim made by certain CIA defendants that because they were following orders their actions were legitimate."
But I'm not sure how reliable this article is is as I haven't seen any other stories that detail the closing arguments. 198.240.128.75 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Nuremberg Defense is entirely out of place here. It's not merely a loaded term. It is a lie.
As much as critics of the U.S. like to pump up the "torture" meme, none of these agents are convicted of torture. It's not a war crime to send one of these terrorists to his home country. It may be against Italian law, but it's not against U.S. law, nor should it be.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "It is a lie". Do you mean the original quote from Robert Seldon Lady ("I'm not guilty. I'm only responsible for carrying out orders that I received from my superiors"). The reference for this looks to be a Reuters article so should be good. For the definition of the Nuremberg Defense - the "...only following orders..." bit - this comes from it's Wikipedia page. Do you mean the claim that the lead prosecutor referenced the Nuremberg defence in his closing arguments - looks to referenced from Human Rights Watch which I think is WP:RS, but I might be wrong?
As for the torture/war crimes you refer to - I don't think anyone is arguing that this man was involved in torture or committed a war crime - the conviction was for kidnapping. There is no need to get sidetracked.
My position is simply that the term "Nuremberg Defence" is used as shorthand to describe a situation when someone says to a court that they are innocent because they were following orders. This seems to be what the defendent did and so a link to "Nuremberg Defence" should be included for people who want to know more about the defence and it is used. WVBluefield and Dreaded Walrus make the point that the term "Nuremberg defence" could be regarded as a "loaded" term and should not be linked to unless someone else has already made the comparison. The article on the defence does not indicate that it is a perjorative term, and seems to include cases where it has been successfully used by defendants. If it is agreed that the term is loaded, then the article on the defence should be updated to this effect. 198.240.128.75 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, the lead prosecutor referenced it. Using loaded terms is part of his job. If HRW uses it, then they're using it the same way. I don't doubt that Hassan Nasr would use it, too, as would any of America's critics in this war. That doesn't make it unbiased.
The Nuremberg Defense is more than just saying they were following orders. It has the obvious association with Nuremberg, and hence, war crimes. The Nazis intended it to mean their privileged combatant status gave them immunity from war crimes charges in the same way that regular German soldiers legitimately had combatant's immunity from ordinary acts of war. It is shorthand for a war crimes defense. (We don't use the term for the ordinary German soldiers.)
In this Italian case, the agents wanted something more akin to diplomatic immunity. This was, after all, an action by the U.S. government.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree the prosecutor referenced it, then do you object to adding a line after "I'm not guilty. I'm only responsible for carrying out orders that I received from my superiors", which would go something like this - "This was characterised as a Nuremberg Defence by the prosecutor" and then add the link to the reference. In this way, the defence is not defined as being a Nuremberg defence, but only that the prosecutor *claimed* it was, and the reader is free to assign weight to the statement as they see fit. This would seem to conform to WP:VERIFY and also WP:NPOV. I think NPOV is important here, because this principle states that an article should represent all signigficant views that are verifiable 198.240.128.75 (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that's nearly enough. There is still the matter of WP:WEIGHT.
I could believe the prosecutor used the phrase, but it would be one loaded comment out of many that lawyers sometimes have to make to sell their case to a naive jury. That some people would buy it is simply taking advantage of the readers' ignorance in order to shade the story.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a bit late but the argument above is just as much doing the same as what it accuses others of - it makes a point abusing reader's ignorance in order to shade the story. How so? Italy doesn't have a jury system. It has lay judges, but they decide together with professional judges. There is no "selling a case to a naive jury". --178.26.44.126 (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian President pardons Colonel Joseph L. Romano

[edit]
  1. "Italy's President Giorgio Napolitano on Friday pardoned a U.S. Air Force officer convicted in absentia to seven years in jail for his role in the 2003 abduction of Egyptian cleric and terror suspect Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar." [...]"According to sources near to Napolitano quoted by ANSA news agency, the move to solve a situation of "obvious sensitivity in terms of bilateral relations with a friendly country" was also aimed at setting an example for the case of the two Italian marines who are facing murder charges in India." [1]

Other sources: [2] (very detailed and informative, unfortunately in Italian only)
Wikilink to 2012 Italian shooting in the Arabian Sea case

LNCSRG (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abu Omar case. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abu Omar case. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Omar_case&oldid=1204466970"