Talk:René Schneider

Assassination section

Removed ==Assassination== which was situated just above ==Alledged American involvement== as unresourced and as empty section topic.--Dakota ~ ° 18:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

this article lacks validations

- the accusation to Roberto Viaux , Kissinger should have some good and serious references. There have even been some trials related to this story which are not mentioned here. As some of the content is alleged, at least this article should reflect this.

- there is a "Valenzuela" mentioned in many parts, however he's not introduced, nor explained who is or anything. looks like a copy and past with missing parts

- This article is controversial however it only seems to cover one side of the story

I fixed a link to an article with references to both Roberto Viaux and Camilo Valenzuela. CIA delivered weapons to the Valenzuela group but it was the Viaux group that killed Schneider. [1]

Removed from External links

• Memo of conversation, January 3, 1975, between President Gerald Ford, William Colby, etc., made available by the National Security Archive (part of the Family jewels documents, contains reference to Schneider's assassination)

This is part of Track II. So it is just additional confirmation of what is already described in this article. Intangible2.0 21:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Communist Victory?

The passage titled "legal suits" claims that there was a communist victory. Allende never considered himself a communist. You may call him a socialist. He never intended to create a system as prevailed in the communist countries. In fact he rejected any such suggestions. I porpose the phrase "communist victory" be replaced by "socialist victory". Ontologix (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

For the purposes of including this article in the scope of WikiProject Chile, I've assessed this article as a C on the Quality scale as follows. I realize it has an infobox, but it could be vastly improved. See Pinochet which uses a subtype of Template:Infobox officeholder.

1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
3. Structure: criterion met
4. Grammar and style: criterion met
5. Supporting materials: criterion not met
6. Accessibility: criterion not met

Ruodyssey (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on René Schneider. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218100954/http://www.ejercito.cl/nuestro_ejercito/com-jef_1931.php to http://www.ejercito.cl/nuestro_ejercito/com-jef_1931.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030426024957/http://foi.missouri.edu/icc/familyslain.html to http://foi.missouri.edu/icc/familyslain.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031005055722/http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol47no3/article03.html to https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol47no3/article03.html

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) 09:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

"Such an argument would carry no weight in any court of law."

Just delete that sentence. It is incorrect and not supported by the source.

I will now outline why that sentence is incorrect:

"Such an argument would carry no weight in any court of law."

What a bold, bold statement that instantly reads as incorrect to anyone who works in the legal field. Did the master of all laws write this?

For context, here is the section at issue:

The U.S. government claims it did not intend for Schneider to be murdered, only kidnapped. When Alexander Haig, Kissinger's aide, was asked "is kidnapping not a crime?" he replied "that depends." Such an argument would carry no weight in any court of law.

(1) The sentence is incorrect. It depends on the court of law. It could very much carry weight. For example, kidnapping is not a crime under United States law if it does not involve interstate travel or commerce. So it actually would "depend" and General Haig would be correct in that instance: it would not be a recognized crime in a U.S. federal court. This is a very important point because the section we are talking about is specifically alluding to a lawsuit in a federal U.S. court... where General Haig's argument would very much "carry weight". See: https://www.egattorneys.com/federal-kidnapping#:~:text=However%2C%20as%20noted%2C%20kidnapping%20is,for%20at%20least%2024%20hours, for just a basic outline of what I am saying here.

And that's just one example. I could come up with other examples where the argument "kidnapping is not always a crime" would carry weight in a court. But that's not my overall point.

My overall point is that: General Haig's statement, "It depends," is correct and would carry weight in a court of law, for instance in U.S. federal court. Therefore, the sentence,Such an argument would carry no weight in any court of law. is not correct.

(2) Moreover, the source does not support that ridiculous sentence. The source is talking about a different legal issue entirely -- whether the defendant's subjective intent to only commit kidnap, and not murder, absolves him of the unintended murder. But it is better to not get into legal analysis in a Wikipedia article.

It's better to just delete that sentence. It is wrong. It is not supported. Never presume that just because something is common sense, it will be legally correct. Kidnapping is not always a crime, Gen. Haig's statement was correct. The sentence to the contrary is wrong. 2601:18A:8181:BE50:5478:8252:A3B5:58F8 (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)