Talk:Khamis al-Obeidi

Addressing...

Dictator is appropriate to use? just wondering... Omernos 16:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam is on the list of dictators, and AFAIK that hasn't been challenged. So it appears to be NPOV to refer to him as such here, yes. -Fsotrain09 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Dictator" is always a POV!!! The best thing to do is just to omit it. Who thinks he was one, will not change his/her mind because of omitting the label.
2. "Khamis" is the name. There is no such thing as a last name in Arabic. D. Cordobale 17:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree about Dictator=POV. Like "Criminal" it is usually applied by others, but "dictator" has been self-applied in history, and is reasonably definable.Algr 17:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that Saddam is already listed as such elsewhere on Wikipedia, so that the statement would appear to be NPOV by our standards. For consistancy, he should be referred to the same way here. If anyone disagrees with the designation, they should discuss it there. -Fsotrain09 17:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Name

Here's how the name is written in Arabic:

خميس العبيدي

Omernos

Kidnappers wearing police uniform

This is completely wrong,the real kidnappers and killers are the government itself, or any other organization assosiated with the government. This actually shows that the democracy is fake in iraq and there is nothing called 'real' democracy.

Ref? Algr 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good God, an encyclopedia is not the place for political debate. I have seen no one say that the men were government agents. Until there is evidence that such a thing might be true, they way it is worded currently is appropriate. Also, don't go making comments like that unless you're willing to sign it. -- SirLamer 17:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, not here. I'm not saying that you're wrong, and neither am I saying that you're right; I'm saying that it's irrelevant. Wikipedia's not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. We don't do politics. --Kizor 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the death squads: I've changed the statement that the Interior Ministry is "known" to operate death squads to "alleged by Sunni Arabs." This is a more accurate citation of the AP/Forbes article.

al-Obeidi/al-Obaidi

I created a redirect at Khamis al-Obaidi to this page, although it seems like "al-Obaidi" actually is the more common use (including, as far as I could tell, by Al Jazeera). Does anyone know which is correct? Should we move the page? -- Renesis13 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Associated Press article I read used "Khamis al-Obedi." Unless it's confirmed that these are transliteration errors rather than differences, the current redirect scheme should do fine. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add more about the man?

Perhaps there should be more information about this guy other than recent events? I'd like to know about his personal beliefs and history. Just saying. --Hector 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can that info be found and verifiability sourced...? If so, then by all means, it can and should be included. Notice we don't currently have even his birthdate in the article. -Fsotrain09 21:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, I clicked on the link of this page hoping to find something about the man besides the fact that he met an untimely end at the hands of a gang of thugs. I think it's a coin toss trying to decide if this entry has any merit without such information. That's like making a page about my life saying "Andrew was a man who posted once on wikipedia." ~~Andrew.

And I suppose Andrew once defended a well-known dictator and was killed because of it? -- Миборовский 23:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Lawyer

This article states:

Khamis al-Obeidi (Arabic: خميس العبيدي‎) (died 21 June 2006) was Saddam Hussein and Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti's top defense lawyer...

Then later on:

The killing occured shortly before the final phase of Saddam Hussein's trial, and Khalil al-Dulaimi, Saddam's chief defence lawyer...

althought Khalil al-Dulaimi's article does not describe him as such. It does however link to:

Ziad al-Khasawneh is a Jordanian lawyer who heads a team of twenty-two defense lawyers...

So who's the boss? - Matthew238 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jordan-based team was fired by Saddam's family, so al-Dulaimi now heads the team. Miraculouschaos 23:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Does the Wiki support political analysis?

If so;

It seems likely this is a political crime, given the position of the victim.

Given that the victim is on the defence team, it might be that his death is intended to communicate a message to the defence team.

Clearly, killing someone is an intimidating message - it might be taken to mean "if defend Saddam, you may be killed".

But this seems strange - the violent groups in Iraq are supposed to be the resistance from the Saddam period; why would they want Saddam found guilty?

However, one notes that the original Judge resigned his position on the basis of State interference in the trial. He claimed the State wanted the trial to complete quickly and with Saddam found guilty.

As noted in the article, the head of the Saddam defence team claims the *State* is responsible for the killing.

Toby Douglass 08:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My hunch is that you are right. There is no strong reason to believe that the Saddam trial would be much different from the Milosevic trial. That said, I don't yet know (because I haven't had time to do the research) of any sources supporting this point of view. What you need to do is to find who among those political analysts who have some degree of "credibility" ( a subjective term, I know) are saying something similar and cite them. Alternatively, if someone says that the word on the street in Iraq or some other significant place is that it was a Washington job, then that would be worth mentioning insofar as it would be both a direct consequence of the event and a politically significant fact in its own right.

Wikipedia policy is to put weight on the opinions of acknowledged experts. while this is useful in many (perhaps most) cases, it can lead to absurdities being presented as truth in those cases in which experts are under great political, economic or social pressure not to believe inconvenient things. There are also occasions on which wikipedia admins have been excessively cautious about, or even openly hostile to, non-mainstream points of view. Unfortunately these are pretty well facts of life and there is little alternative but to be more thorough in your research than others and to use more diligence than others in finding sources to support arguments widely denied by the establishment in all its forms, and by the general population Ireneshusband 17:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not support political analysis. Indeed, it is expressly forbidden under the No Original Research policy. To put it bluntly, this is not a soap box. Wikipedia is not here to give you an opportunity to prove to the world that we are REALLY ruled by a group of aliens called "The Circle" who have a secret base in the Sahara and kidnapped your mummy.

Regardless, I for one seriously doubt you are correct in your "analysis". Nothing that Saddam's lawyers could possibly say or do would have ever resulted in a not guilty verdict. They're defending the indefencible --RaiderAspect 03:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that there is no possibility, in a just court, of a not guilty verdict. However, as per the original Judge's resignation from the court, there may be an issue where the State is trying to expedite the trial; to get it over with as soon as possible, rather than following due process. Why the State should be so eager to complete the trail as to kill members of the defence team, I do not know; the difference can only be a year or so of trial time, so one would have though the difference mattered so little as to be worth nothing, or nearly nothing. Perhaps however the people involved are irrational in their views; perhaps they have particular grievance against Saddam and wish him dead or jailed as soon as possible, and also react strongly, without a true value placed upon due process of justice, against those defending him. Toby Douglass 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"former dictator's trial"

Does this represent an objective point of view?--Eshcorp 12:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A dictatorship is a type of government, so I believe that calling him a dictator is still objective, since he met the criteria. But that's just me... Fllmtlchcb 20:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See dicussion above. -Fsotrain09 21:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd say that it is clearly POV unless he referred to himself as a dictator. Actually he called himself President of Iraq and Chairman of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command up until the time he was deposed in 2003. The "official ruler" of Iraq prior to 2003 was the Ba'ath Party through a nine-member Revolutionary Command Council. Officially Power was not vested in Saddam Hussein. If you want to call him a dictator then at the very least you should have a reference to show that the official chain of command was a sham - I'm not saying that it was not, I'm only saying that you can't make that leap of judgment without something to back up your conclusion. --gargoyle888 00:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only on Wikipedia could you possibly find someone arguing that Saddam was not a dictator... --RaiderAspect 03:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's interesting but that is clearly not what I was saying. It matters not whether the man was or was not a dictator in fact. It matters only what can be clearly demonstrated as his position or title. The term Dictator is derogatory and reflects a POV but more importantly: was not his title. As someone else very succinctly said yesterday "Wikipedia does not support political analysis..."--gargoyle888 17:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, using my own words against me. Regardless, I think your point isn't relevant. No one in the 20th Century has actually referred to themselves as a 'Dictator' or a 'War Criminal', but plenty of articles refer to them as thus. If you think we should insist on strict use of titles, then thats an issue of policy, not for this page. --RaiderAspect 04:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T's OK. I see someone has already taken the initiative and changed it to a neutral term. So I'm happy.--gargoyle888 06:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph

I happen to find a photograph used by Al Jazeera website, but it seems to belong to The French Press Archive as credited below. I was wondering if it's possible to use it under a proper license tag.
AlJazeera's News On The Death of Khamis Al Obeidi (Arabic)
Omernos 14:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a similar, perhaps identical, image credited to the Associated Press. I've uploaded it, tagged it properly as Fair Use, and am now working on integrating it into relevant articles. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for "multiple gunshot wounds"

In the main body of this article it is noted that a citation is needed for Khamis al-Obeidi having been shot multiple times. While looking around on the Web, I came across an article in the Internation Herald Tribune that may be what's needed. Ehnebuske 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]