Judge Who Sentenced Saddam Hussein To Death Is Reportedly Killed In Retaliation By ISIS Rebels

800px-SaddamHussein_in_court_2004July01_DF-SD-05-03944There are reports this week that Judge Raouf Abdul Rahman, who sentenced former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to death by hanging in 2006, has been killed by rebels in retaliation for the execution. It is the nightmare of judges who could find themselves called to account for prior rulings by a mob. In this case, Rahman could see the steady territorial gains of the Sunni ISIS militants and must have known that he was at great risk.

In reality, Rahman should never have the judge in the trial. He was the replacement chief judge of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal’s in 2006. The prior judge was removed over perceptions that he was too lenient. Rahman however, was sitting in judgment over, among other crimes, Hussein’s killing of 148 people in the town of Dujail. Yet, Rahman’s home town had been the subject of a poison gas attack in 1988 by Hussein.

In the meantime. Saddam Hussein’s former generals and Baathist party members are joining the ISIS insurgency in a deepening sectarian war against the Shia. So we could have not only an Al Qaeda offshoot (that didn’t exist before we invaded) and Saddamists create a new government in Iraq after spending $2 trillion and suffering thousands of military deaths and injuries.

48 thoughts on “Judge Who Sentenced Saddam Hussein To Death Is Reportedly Killed In Retaliation By ISIS Rebels”

  1. swarthmoremom,

    The Politico story ties in with my comment at June 24, 2014 at 12:33 pm and the overarching thesis of my comments.

    Public perception of the Iraq mission has been corrupted by the false narrative that OIF was “based on lies” with “constitutional problems over [an] undeclared war” (jonathanturley), when in fact, the cause of action for the 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement, including OIF, was Saddam’s noncompliance and PL 102-1 and PL 107-243 provided specific statutory authorization, which is equivalent to a declaration of war and actually conforms better to modern norms. Saddam’s breach of the ceasefire was fact: UNMOVIC reported “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” in March 2003 and the post-war Duelfer Report corroborated Iraq was in broad violation, in addition to Saddam’s non-weapons violations. Saddam was rearming, including a clandestine, active program in the notorious Iraqi intelligence services.

    Point being, how differently would the public perceive the Iraq mission if the fundaments of its law and policy were understood correctly rather than misguided by a false narrative?

    In light of current events, it’s more important than ever to set the record straight on the Iraq mission because the prevailing false narrative of the Iraq mission is the patient zero that’s responsible for the corrupted political dialogue that’s caused the harmful turn in American foreign policy under President Obama.

  2. “A rising number of Americans think the war in Iraq was not worth fighting.

    A NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Annenberg poll released Tuesday shows that 71 percent of those surveyed think the war in Iraq “wasn’t worth it,” while only 22 percent believe that the war was worth the effort.

    Results show a large dip in approval of the Iraq war in comparison to the previous time the pollsters asked if the war had been worthwhile. In 2013, 59 percent said the Iraq war wasn’t worth it, while 35 percent said the opposite.

    The criticism of the Iraq war runs across all ages. Just 23 percent of young adults and 21 percent of seniors think the war was worthwhile. Support was also low among men — only 22 percent answered that the war was worth it.

    When it comes to U.S. intervention into Iraq to stop militants from taking over the country, Americans are divided. Half say the U.S. does not have a responsibility to intervene and 43 percent answered that the U.S. has an obligation to help.

    The poll was conducted from June 16 to June 22 among 1,383 Americans and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.27 percentage points.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/iraq-war-poll-108277.html#ixzz35f98NtCh

  3. Eric,
    Thank you. Your comments are always reasoned, always supported and always civil.

  4. Maliki & his cohorts continued the De-Baathification of Iraq,
    Now were supposed to blame Obama for not forcing ‘everybody to just git along’?
    I’d be happy just seeing our president forcing the tea baggers to get along with the Democrats.

  5. It is the nightmare of judges who could find themselves called to account for prior poor rulings by a mob.


  6. Eric,
    Are you suggesting that IF China were to link America to their terrorists and invaded, overthrew our Government and disbanded our military all in the guise to secure their “interests” (coal/oil/natural gas) that they should stay longer than the 12 years we did to Iraq?

  7. traveling limey: “Even so, its not a good feeling to know how much harm our tax dollars have done over there with hardly an ounce of change for the good.”

    It’s worse than that. There was much change for the good in Iraq, but the good that was so hard earned by Americans, Iraqis, and our coalition partners together has been lost through the error of Obama. It’s one thing to have never succeeded in the first place. It’s another thing to have been succeeding only to incompetently fumble away the progress.

    Regime change is like a cancer cure that requires extensive, varied treatment beyond the traumatic, invasive removal of malignant tumors. Which we were providing to Iraq as we’ve provided in other regime changes. By 2011, the signs of Iraq healing were clear. But we then abruptly cut off treatment and left Iraq in an increasingly virulent environment before Iraq’s immune system was strong enough to fight off the infections.

    We gain little from war itself because war is destruction. The prize of war is the power to build the peace on our terms. The long-term gains we historically associate with wars have actually been realized from our peace-building following those wars. To resolve the Saddam problem and then leave Iraq before responsibly securing the peace was a contradiction of all our acquired wisdom as “leader of the free world”, an inhumane abandonment of the Iraqi people, and a short-sighted, enormously risky gamble that invited new problems. Leaving Iraq before the peace operations were completed was an error.

  8. Max-1,

    Actually, Ambassador Ryan Crocker signed the 2008-2011 SOFA on behalf of the US.

    Have you read the reports linked at June 24, 2014 at 11:21 am? They’ve been provided to you before to understand the historical context of the 2008-2011 SOFA, the expectation about the next SOFA, and Obama’s failure to negotiate that next SOFA.

  9. Ever notice that when you try to put anything in a Republican or Democrat perspective, it makes no sense at all to anyone not sucked into this Left/Right ideology?

  10. I don’t think you should be condemning a judge to death for giving a deserved death penalty. We should never have got involved, but, hey Indio, are you defending Saddam Hussein? Sure, other murdering tyrants like Netanyahu and dozens more should also get their just deserts, but that is beside the point.

  11. Its time to stop pretending Iran is our worst enemy. They are against ISIS/ISIL and, as the most stable regime in the area, would be a good US ally. Sure as heck validates the many of us that demonstrated against the Iraqi war in 2003. Even so, its not a good feeling to know how much harm our tax dollars have done over there with hardly an ounce of change for the good.
    I wish to heck Iran would get nuclear weapons; that renegade racist oppressive state called Israel might back down a bit.

  12. Live by the Sword , Die by the Sword.

    Hopefully he received the same type of show trial.

  13. The FACT that President Bush’s signature is on the withdrawal agreement has many a con blaming Obama… For Bush’s signature being on the agreement. Another instalment of: Thanks Obama!

  14. psst, Eric,
    Shock and Awe was an act of terrorism and NOT a Liberal handout to the Iraqis as you suggest.

  15. swarthmoremom
    That was a good segment.
    Jon even pulled out Cheney from ’09.

  16. Nick Spinelli: “Eric, Great assist! Thanks. Facts won’t matter w/ cultists. But, we need to keep putting them out there for people w/ open minds.”

    The unprincipled ‘cultist’ description seems apt because President Bush reacted to 9/11 with a muscular, sure liberal internationalist approach squarely in the tradition of Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton. On the basis of core principle alone, one therefore would have expected Democrats, mindful of their own heritage, to have rallied around Bush. Especially with Iraq, Clinton’s presidency had been in large part shaped by the frustrating struggle with the defiant, deceptive, dangerous, noncompliant Saddam. Bush picking up Clinton’s struggle with Saddam should have been a cause for bipartisan unity.

    Instead, the bashing of Bush by self-described ‘liberals’ has led to the frustrating, self-defeating spectacle of influential persons speaking liberal platitudes while at the same time quixotically opposing the definitively liberal American strategy in the War on Terror. The effect of these liberals’ tragic hypocrisy has been the degradation of the Western liberalizing influence on the illiberal regions of the world. (While travelling in the Middle East in the late 2000s, I noted that much of the histrionic conspiratorial anti-Bush, anti-American propaganda over there cited to histrionic conspiratorial Western sources from here.)

    By the same token, an equally damaging effect of the attacks by self-described liberals on Bush’s liberal choices has been the degradation within Western societies of the domestic understanding and support we need to adequately sustain the liberal peace-building strategy endorsed by President Bush and, seemingly at first, President Obama.

  17. I am glad that someone employed the three words: George W. and RETARD together as one name. I get tired of people who make slur words out of perfectly legit names like Redskins or Seattle. Retard does not have to be in all caps. It does not imply mentally retarded. It is rather a good name for those from places like Midland with daddies from Kennebunckport who think that their itShay does not stink and that one Eye country like Iran is the same as one named Iraq. We dogs have a name that is similar to retard and use it sparingly. Poodle. We think of George W as a spoiled poodle with a shaved back and a bow on the head even tho he is a male.

  18. on 1, June 24, 2014 at 10:53 amTheSaucyMugwump

    I dislike Obama immensely, but I do not believe that Iraq would ever be stable under a secular elected government. As in Afghanistan, as soon as we leave, the country reverts to Mecca Macabre.
    Exactly right. Fundamentalist Islam will keep them in line. Or any really bad dictator.

  19. Regarding the degeneration of the Arab Spring, it is also worth spotlighting the deleterious effects of Obama’s interventions generally and specifically in Libya and Syria. Obama’s Libya intervention especially was touted as the anti-OIF, despite that OIF had a much stronger law and policy bases than Obama’s ad hoc, severely distorted R2P claim, and the success of the COIN “Surge” (with Anbar Awakening). Anti-OIF was a poor basis for an intervention.

    One can conjecture whether the Bush Freedom Agenda would have provided a better principled framework for the US to approach the Arab Spring from the outset – before it degenerated while terrorists opportunistically co-opted events – but it’s hard to imagine a worse American approach than Obama’s stumbling, diminished ‘lead from behind’ approach to a historic pivot point.

Comments are closed.