Talk:Execution of Saddam Hussein/Archive 3

message: It appears to have disappeared.  The video is already out.  Don't try to censor it.  Censorship sucks.  Give people all the information.
:See the discussion below titled "protected." Some admin thought it prudent to remove perfectly valid links. ~ UBeR 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What Happened to the Link to the Cell Phone Video?

message: May I make it here? Pipe752 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "lol" on democracy? lol.--Shtove 01:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 64.107.220.181 ~ UBeR 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Ip's vandalizing this article

message: A Talibani reaction was moved to the World Political Leader section. It seems a little rocky to be categorizing a Taliban member as a world political leader. Also I don't think putting him under Palestine is correct at all. ~ UBeR 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I moved it along with the Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia reaction.  Though, these had been grouped by general sentiment.  The section needs to be fleshed out more. --Aude (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That was a mistake.  It's corrected now. --Aude (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taliban World Leaders?

message: Since my previous comment on this issue was deleted and I think that the question might be relevant to the article I restate it:
Does anyone know, why Prime Minister Maliki ratified the death sentence? According to article 70 of the Iraqi constitution this seems to be the prerogative of Iraq's president Talabani. Gugganij 10:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I believe your comment was moved to the archive, or perhaps it was indeed deleted. Anyway, the reason, I quote, is as follows: "here was one final hurdle: Would President Jalal Talabani, a Sunni Kurd who opposes the death penalty, object to the execution? A phone call later Friday between al-Maliki and the president ended with a decision that Talabani's signature was not needed. No explanation for the decision was given." Perhaps it should be included? ~ UBeR 20:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is an interesting aspect. Gugganij 17:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prime Minister Maliki ratifying the death sentence

message: Is there any way we can get in trouble under US law for linking to the mobile phone footage, which apparently was taken illegally?   .  I'm guessing not, but it seemed like it would be safer to mention.  -- Pakaran 20:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't believe so. Mostly because this video is not "illegal" in the United States. I do not believe it was "illegal" in Iraq, only that there are investigations into who recorded/released the video. Perhaps there may be prosecution against the filmer (in Iraq), then again perhaps not. ~ UBeR 20:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, that's what I suspected.  If anything, it seems more likely that the filmer will shortly be unemployed.  I just thought it was worth mentioning.  -- Pakaran 21:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the person who (allegedly) filmed the video, and two others, have been arrested.  However, I'm not sure what bearing that has?  Ostensibly, Saddam was acting within the law (that he himself created) when he had the 142 people killed.  He's learned the hard way this was an illegal law that allowed him to murder a village.  Any laws that prohibit distrobution of the video are far more likely to target sites hosting it than those pointing to the resource.  FireWeed 20:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they were arrested for either caring cell phones into the execution chambers, which they did not allow, or either for conspiring to create tensions between Shias and Sunnis. ~ UBeR 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently they caught the guy. ~ UBeR 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see that, on USAToday.com. They aren't saying for sure, but a name has been bandied about. The official video is silent and shows only the preliminaries. I think this bootleg video is an important piece of journalism, because it shows it like it was. It tells the truth about it, grim as it may be. I don't speak Arabic, but the last word spoken by Saddam was clearly discernible as "Muhammed", just before the loud "clunk" of the trap being sprung. Just more ugliness in this whole ugly situation. Wahkeenah 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hanging can hardly be called Saddam's "own method."  I'm sure you've heard of the Wild West - do you know what they did to people who stole horses?  FireWeed 20:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Some cable news outlets are also now saying that those being arrested are being scapegoated. Imagine that. Wahkeenah 10:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do have one opinion regarding the removal of the execution link:  Wikipedia is not censored.  Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted. (Opinion stolen from WP:CENSOR) Reswobslc 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  As for whether the cell phone video is illegal in the United States... well, it most certainly is not.  Otherwise it wouldn't have been aired by the news stations.  Certainly the news stations removed the actual hanging portion of the video in order to not offend their viewers, but if there were some legal concern as to whether the video could not be showed, the news stations wouldn't be showing any portion of it for that same reason.  There is absolutely no reason why the link to the video shouldn't stay. Reswobslc 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That is true. However, the video does not violate any U.S. laws. ~ UBeR 23:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illegal video

message: Based upon the section headings, the article is too biased against the execution.  We already have a "Reactions" section and some of the reactions are crtitical.  Therefore, a seperate "Criticisms" section is not needed.  It should be merged back into Reactions so as not to favor POV against the execution. Johntex\talk 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is not the same issue discussed above, I have moved your comment to a new section titled "Proposal to merge Criticism into Reaction". --Hab baH 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the reactions section should be structured to show these two branches of criticism?  The talk page at least seems highly biased, by a few thick-skulled editors, who present the point of view that Uncle Sam is Evil and Saddam created a happy Iraq.  In fact I fear my support for a warning label with the video will associate me with those who show no sense.  FireWeed 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to merge Criticism into Reaction