Talk:Alberto Nisman

Untitled

This page is a mess. Will somebody with knowledge of the incident and what lead up to it give this page an edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.253.99 (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Traces of gunpowder

I know it sounds alarming to the layman's ear, but the prosecutor in charge of the case, the one that revealed that no traces had been found, admitted herself that this fact is not conclusive in ruling out a suicide, because the small caliber of the weapon used usually leaves no residues:

"Las pericias no detectaron rastros de pólvora en la mano derecha del fiscal Nisman". Clarin (in Spanish).

In my opinion the article shouldn't mention this at all, or if it does, at least it should explain (as the prosecutor did) that this is not incompatible with the suicide scenario. --Langus (t) 03:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

O'Donnell

The paragraph about Santiago O'Donnell's theory should be removed. It openly talks about a link between Nisman and the United States, but the links only talk about Nisman's relation with the spy Jaime Situsso; Situsso = United States is only a relation drawn by O'Donnell. It also talks about alleged orders to ignore syrian clues and lead the case against Iran; ignoring that the "syrian clue" has long been discredited and rejected. Besides, it is only acknowledged by government-owned media (such as Radio Nacional) or government-financed media (such as Página 12, where O'Donnell works); no source which is independent from the government pays attention to those conspiracy theories. Cambalachero (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I was thinking yesterday that a new section on his appearence on Argenleaks/Wikileaks is warranted. Not in relation to his death (therefore, not under the Death section as IP editor is trying to edit-war into) but as a relevant event in his life that gave him front page coverage in Argentine media. Not so much as his death did, granted, but relevant in a biography, even if questioned. --Langus (t) 21:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Radio Nacional and Página/12 are notable sources, even if they are pro Government. If they mention the link between Nisman and the United States, then it's notable and it should be mentioned. If you think they are biased, this can be mentioned (just as we should mention any articles from Clarín and La Nación are strongly biased against the Government. There are very few neutral parties in this affair). By the way, the Wikileaks cables pertaining Nisman are a matter of public record: if they truly exist, they should be found. This should eliminate any accusation of bias, since Wikileaks is a neutral party. 190.195.91.109 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Aaaand a cursory search of Wikileaks reveals Nisman was indeed in close contact with the US Embassy in Argentina. See this cable, this one, or this one. A prosecutor delivering personal status updates about the case to the US Embassy, or amending things according to their instructions, is highly irregular to say the least. Doesn't prove he was working for US intelligence, but it is irregular. I'd say it warrants mentioning in the article. 190.195.91.109 (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

First: página 12 is not an unreliable source because of what they say, but because of the financial support they receive from the government, so their support has a clear conflict of interest involved. If this info is to be included, it must be referenced to other sources that do not receive such support. La Nación, on the other hand, has no conflict of interest here (it is not financed by either the government or rival political parties), and it is a newspaper of record. I see no reason to discuss about the Clarín newspaper here, as it is not being currently used as a reference anywhere.

As for the leaks themselves, they actually prove that such sources manipulate the information to fit their own agenda (that, or that they have a serious difficulty to understand the English language). The article says "he was instead to assume certain guilt of Iranians suspects, although no trial had been conducted", which contradicts this wikileak. If you read it, it actually says that Nisman's original request to the interpol already included "presumptuous conclusions of guilt", and that they advised him to reword them to fit the interpol standards, pointing to the Iranians merely as suspects. In fact, the rewording advises mentioned in the leaks do not suggest at all instructions on framing someone or leaving someone else alone; they seem like mundane advises on how to fill paperwork. That Nisman provided the US embassy with status updates and received paperwork advises does not seem suspicious at all, considering that the US was collaborating with Argentina in the investigation. And I have yet to see in which part of those links "the cables revealed how Nisman had received direct orders from the US embassy as not to investigate the Syrian clues in the AMIA bombing and the local connection of the terrorist attack", as claimed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Do note the leaks I provided are merely the result of a cursory search; I don't know if they are all there is to it. I haven't read the book by O'Donnell, but he either references specific cables or he doesn't. If he does, it's a matter of checking them. If he doesn't, then it's poor journalism, and it requires further investigation. Página/12 receiving financial support from the government doesn't make them "unreliable"; that's guilt by association (and some journalists there, like Verbitsky, sometimes write articles which do not flatter the government). The only thing that would make the paper unreliable would be writing incorrect information. Neither Clarín nor La Nación are neutral parties, as even the most ardent opponents of the government will admit: both papers have been battling the government for years, acting as the voice of the opposition (middle-class and conservative, respectively. Neither paper represents leftist opposition). They have also been involved in serious unresolved controversies that put them at odds with the government, such as the thing with Papel Prensa and disputes about business and monopolies which I'm sure you're well aware of. La Nación in particular is a conservative paper whose ideological make-up puts it at odds with the government. If we are going to rule out Página/12 for partisanship (as opposed to actually publishing false or malicious information), we should also do the same with Clarín and La Nación... (For the record, I do agree La Nación tends to be less confrontational than Clarín, possibly because it's less involved in direct battles with the government. However you absolutely cannot ignore its ideological make-up and strong bias against the government) 200.127.158.54 (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, according to the article by Perfil included in the references, Página 12 refused to publish information of those leaks that could damage the reputation of the members of the government. That should settle the discussion: Página 12 is not reliable. And let's better keep the delusions of "class struggle" out of the discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And Perfil is a reliable source because...? Is it also a "newspaper of record"? Even if Página/12 had refused to publish some information from those leaks, that wouldn't make the information they did publish unreliable. But also, weren't the leaks about Nisman reported by O'Donnell? He isn't Página/12, he merely works there. Are you saying the leaks are false because some other leaks were allegedly withheld? And aren't those other mysterious leaks also searchable in Wikileaks? Re: "delusions class struggle", are you claiming La Nación isn't a conservative newspaper? Are you saying the conflict over Papel Prensa doesn't exist? Are you saying the majority of articles in La Nación aren't vocally against the government, usually representing the point of view of traditional medium/upper classes? (I'll assume you are not saying this, and instead admit it: in this case, are you saying this bias does NOT color La Nación's reporting of this case, while Página/12's bias does? Why the double standard?) Important: I am NOT claiming Página doesn't have a bias; it obviously has one. I'm arguing that the bias, by itself, doesn't make it automatically unreliable; if you are going to argue that, then let's discard La Nación as well. 200.127.158.54 (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the cables are somewhat damning of Nisman in my opinion. For example, he apologizes to the embassy for not giving them "the heads-up" (what the hell? a prosecutor giving them the heads-up, i.e. advance notice, to a foreign embassy?). In particular, given the troubled relationship between the US and Iran, should an Argentinian prosecutor be seeking advice from US personnel on how to better investigate the Iranian connection? Isn't that a serious conflict of interests? 200.127.158.54 (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have already answered that: Nisman's contacts with the US embassy do not prove anything, as the US was helping Argentina with the investigation at the time. There wasn't anything secret or illegal in that. As for the rest, all I'm saying is that all that all those class struggle slogans are pointless for the discussion at hand. La Nación and Perfil have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Página 12 does not, as pointed. Cambalachero (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not claim the leaks "prove" anything. I do claim they hint at suspicious behavior by Nisman; it's reasonable to call attention to this. I disagree with your interpretation: 1- a prosecutor should not consult with a foreign embassy on matters in which the embassy itself is biased. 2- said embassy should not help redact legal documents, 3- said embassy should not contact the prosecutor because they weren't given "a heads up". In matters regarding Iran and possible terrorism, the US embassy is not a neutral party. This is all highly irregular. Regarding your opinion about La Nación and Página/12's relative fact-checking skills, I disagree, especially because in political matters there is a high degree of interpretation, and while Página/12 tends to interpret events in a way that favors the government, La Nación tends to interpret it negatively. This isn't strict fact-checking and we are not proving math theorems here. Politics is ideology; every newspaper mentioned in this talk page so far is highly politized and ideological. La Nación is not some sort of gold standard of rational discourse. 200.127.158.54 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the article itself, I propose to remove the paragraph about the leaks as it is written and rewrite it again, in the biography section, using the information from the article by Perfil that is included in the references. Cambalachero (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think Perfil is an accurate and fact-checked source, but O'Donnell or Página/12 aren't? There are very few named sources in the article by Perfil, which, by the way, also mentions the CIA/Mossad connection 200.127.158.54 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, Argentina and the US were working toguether in the investigation. What "should" have happened is beyond the purpose of this talk page, we must report what did happen. That Nisman worked alongside the US embassy is just a natural consequence of that collaboration. Do not get confused on the roles of a prosecutor and a judge, they are different. Yes, the article in Perfil mentions the link claims, but describing the issues between Nisman, O'Donnell and Página 12 as an uninvolved third party source, which is the approach that best helps our needs. Cambalachero (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? "Unfortunately for you"!? Sorry, do you think whether Nisman collaborated or not with the US embassy somehow affects me personally? Who do you think I am? In any case, I disagree about the rest: it's wrong for a foreign embassy to "help" redact legal documentation; it's wrong for them to call a prosecutor because he didn't give them a heads-up; it's wrong for them to be so involved in the investigation when they are not a neutral party. I haven't found the cable where allegedly they advise Nisman to drop the Syrian lead and to favor Iran instead -- it may very well be false -- but if they did, this is a very serious interference akin to directing the investigation by proxy, and should be noted in the article! The cables are all marked as "confidential", by the way, so beyond the fact Nisman entered and left the US embassy several times, it's unwarranted to assume it was always a matter of public record that they helped redact documents, that they advised which leads to follow or drop, and that they complained when they weren't forewarned about measures an Argentinian prosecutor was about to take. 200.127.158.54 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Secrecy in the precise details does not mean that the whole thing was secret. If all that was wrong, that's none of our business: Wikipedia is not a venue to Right Great Wrongs. Cambalachero (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed about Wikipedia's role. However, I wasn't arguing that we should right any wrongs. I merely said that Nisman's alleged misbehaviors are notable enough to merit inclusion in a Wikipedia article about him. It is our business to report these allegations because they are notable, and they are notable because they refer to the alleged misbehavior of a prosecutor in a high-profile case. I also didn't argue that the whole proceedings were secret; I conceded that it was publicly known that Nisman entered and left the embassy frequently. His actual dealings with the embassy must have been secret, though, otherwise what else is there to classify as confidential? I'll save you the trouble to write even more strawmen: here is a list of things I'm NOT arguing: that it's been definitely proven Nisman misbehaved; that if he misbehaved, he deserves to be dead; that if he misbehaved this implies all of his conclusions were wrong; that because the US embassy is not a neutral party in relation to Iran, that this rules out Iran as a suspect of the bombing; that because La Nación is a conservative newspaper that is biased against the government this means everything they write is wrong/incorrect; that everything Página/12 writes is true/correct. 200.127.158.54 (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Please don't present conspiracy theories - and the Buenos Aires Herald's recent editorials - as fact. bobrayner (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Days before death

The publication of the 300 p report before his death detailing his allegations, bears mentioning as much as the congressional hearing. Cpsoper (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

External links

I have added two external links to his reports. Cpsoper (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Controversies about Nisman's life

To the point, then: this is not a hagiography, this is a biography. So it must contain not only the "bright spots" in the life of Nisman but also the controversies. And there are several: his obscure relationship with the CIA and Antonio Stiuso, his secret offshore accounts, the accusation of taking half the salary of Lagomarsino every month, the complaints of several groups and associations of the relatives of AMIA's bombing victims, etc. If this article does not give a space for controversies and dire accusations such as these, then it is merely an article designed for making Nisman some kind of saint. And shall I remind you that, for the puropose of concentrating on his death and alleged murder or suicide, there is already an entire entry. This article goes beyond that, as it should.

For another example of what I'm talking about, see this entry in the spanish Wikipedia (Investigation on the prosecutor's person) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.129.151 (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Cambalachero, can you please explain where is a problem with sourced content? --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed, see #O'Donnell --Cambalachero (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You are just plain wrong here. If you don't want to leave the section "Political contacts with the CIA, FBI and US Embassy" because of that "conspiracy theories out" argument, we can discuss it further at another time. BUT you ALSO want to delete the section "Alleged money laundering and undeclared earnings" just because you feel so, speciallly considering that it is NOT a part of O'Donnell and Wikileaks controversy in the article. In fact, the information about Nisman's alleged money laundering, undeclared earnings and information about secret offshore accounts comes from totally differente journalists and newspapers. So, what's your excuse here? You just want to delete it for your own personal reasons, otherwise you could have talked about it first here. You sir, are a nothing but a devious hypocrite, and I expect this injustice to be corrected.

Then again, nobody mentions the fact that both sections -"Political contacts with the CIA, FBI and US Embassy" and "Alleged money laundering and undeclared earnings"- are indeed in the Spanish entry of this same article. So let me ask you again, why is everyone who allow it to be there wrong and ONLY YOU are right here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.97.91 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Homicide?

The case is not closed, there's no firm ruling, no suspects, and every serious forensic analysis say it was a suicide. The page in spanish cites "gun shot wound" as the cause of death, why does this page say it was a homicide and was confirmed by gendarmerie's analysis? It's well known that that analysis is seriously flawed, and they couldn't prove how the murderers left no evidence, footprints, fingerprints, and closed the bathroom from the inside leaving Nisman's body leaned towards the door effectively blocking it? The forensic analysis made by the gendarmerie is highly suspicious as they are not the natural agency that should make forensic analyses and it was unexpectedly ordered in the middle of the investigation of the dissappearence and death of Santiago Maldonado when the same gendarmerie was who chased him to the river, the supposed place of his death. I think at least the cause of death should be gun shot wound and maybe add that it hasn't yet been confirmed if it was a suicide or a homicide. But clearly forensic studies' conclusions lean more to the suicide hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petruza (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)