I’m assuming the former dictator sees his days are numbered and realized his defense attorney wouldn’t be sparing him the noose.
Saddam Lawyer Killed – The Corner @ NRO
One of Saddam Hussein’s lawyers was shot to death Wednesday after he was abducted from his home by men wearing police uniforms in Baghdad, court and police officials said.
Khamis al-Obeidi, who represented Saddam and his half brother Barzan Ibrahim in their eight-month-old trial, was abducted from his house at 7 a.m., said Saddam’s top lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi. His body was found shot to death on a street near the Shiite slum of Sadr City, police Lt. Thaer Mahmoud said.
It just all seems so…. Baghdad 1993. You know, the golden years when CNN covered up all of the Hussein-era atrocities so they could keep their digs in the Iraqi capital.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
saddam’s lawyer was just killed on a baghdad street. oh, things are going so well over in iraq, aren’t they? everything’s so peachy. everything’s getting better. LOL. we are occupiers of iraq and, unfortunately, until we leave, things will continue to deteriorate.
US out of iraq NOW. To continue this farce is completely un-american. We should be ashamed of this administration, who LIED us into this immoral and illegal war.
“until we leave, things will continue to deteriorate…”
That has got to be the surreal anti-American statement of the year! ROTFLMAO 🙂
But what I came here to say: Bruce, are you sure about the motive for the killing? Saddam killed so many of his own people, it’s quite possible that a few of them just can’t wait for the new Iraqi justice system to work, and hit the closest they could get to Saddam.
Another possibility (given Saddam’s track record) is that Saddam himself is trying to delay the outcome of his trial, or create a basis for appeal. Lots of actors/motives are still possible from the little info I’ve seen.
Calarato, good call on the surrealism of anti-American sentiment in #1.
Each day that passes, I’m convinced that the longer Saddam lives, the more deaths his supporters and allies cause in Iraq. He needs to be tried efficiently, properly, then publicly killed in whatever fashion suits the Iraqi govt and his body cremated & disposed –no grave for the family or supporters to mourn and honor.
The Iraqi govt needs to finish these public trials and put Saddam’s reign of terror behind the Iraqi people. The sooner, the better.
saddam’s lawyer was just killed on a baghdad street. oh, things are going so well over in iraq, aren’t they?
Of course, according to rightiswrong’s leftist theories, that should never have happened — because said person was representing the kind, benevolent, kite-flying monarch loved by all Iraqis.
#2
I think you’re spot on with both comments
thanks Jon 😉
#2 Calarato — June 21, 2006 @ 11:14 am – June 21, 2006
Unless things are substantially different in Iraq than in the US, all that Hussein would have had to do was discharge his defense counsel. He wouldn’t have to have had him killed.
You’re digging a bit too much.
Ummm, except for the fact that I’m not.
First, I’m talking about a bunch of different possibilities and saying we really don’t have enough info to advance any one theory.
Second, for the recrd, a political and judicial climate in which lawyers are being assassinated is far more disruptive to the judicial process, and far more likely to win strong international sympathy for Saddam (as you should know intimately, on both counts) than for Saddam to merely dismiss counsel.
Every now and then I check in with one of your comments to discover if you’ve gotten remotely worth reading or responding to… and practically every time, you have not. 🙁 Bye again, for awhile.
Excellent point, Calarato. The assassination of his lawyer is exactly what Saddam needs to give his syncophants like Raj another opportunity to shriek how life was better under Saddam and how awful things are now, etc.
You’ll forgive me if the scumbat that was defending Hussein is dead. It’s too bad it wasn’t Ramsey Clark.
#8 Calarato — June 21, 2006 @ 2:02 pm – June 21, 2006
Remind me again. If there is a hint that Saddam or his henchmen were behind the assassination of Saddam’s defense lawyer, just how easy would it be for Saddam to engage another defense lawyer? The likelihood is that Saddam will be held in jail until he is either convicted (in which case he would remain in jail) or acquitted (in which case he would presumably be released). The assassination of his lawyer is unlikely to speed his acquittal and release–if he is acquitted . So remind me again, what benefit would Saddam get from having his lawyer assassinated? At the rate things were going, Saddam might have died of old age before the trial comes to a conclusion irrespective of his lawyer’s assassination.
Second, for the recrd, a political and judicial climate in which lawyers are being assassinated is far more disruptive to the judicial process…
That may be, but what evidence do you have that the assassination of Saddam’s lawyer was part of a pattern or practice? Any more than murders of people in other professions. You might have a point if you were discussing assassination of government ministers or their deputies, or their relatives, but I haven’t seen many reports of assassinations of lawyers because they were lawyers. Regardless of whether they were Saddam’s lawyers.
You might have a better point if the judge were to have been assassinated. Apparently, he is still alive and breathing.
Exactly. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume Saddam’s supporters have infiltrated the Ministry of Interior assumably by changing their name from Omar to Achmed, and showed up with proper credentials to wisk the lawyer away and kill him.
Though I must say I have seen sharper bowling balls on the rack.
Raj-
I think I may need to refer you to the dictionary. See “satire.”
Maybe that will help you understand my postings a bit more from now on.
“how life was better under Saddam and how awful things are now.”
I am sorry, but as an American that grew up in the Muslim Middle East and I really sick and tired of this type of pro-Marxist propaganda being shouted out by ‘conservatives.’
Unless you are pro-Communist, being criticial of the Bush Administration’s bumbling of the Iraqi War does not mean that you are “un-American”, or that you love Saddam.
The reality is that the United States government has faciliated an Islamic fundamentalists from taking control of the government from quasi-Marxist secularists. This is largely why conservatives refuse to talk about gay rights in Iraq when they get all stiffy over the administration talking about ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ and fighting ‘terrorists.’
#13 Bruce (GayPatriot) — June 21, 2006 @ 5:55 pm – June 21, 2006
If you look at my comments a little more closely, you would discover that neither of them were directed to your post. Both were directed to other comments, and they identified the comments to which they were directed.
Edward TJ writes: (something incomprehensible)
I’m really trying hard to discern what point you were trying to make in that post, but got completely lost in finding relevancy to Bruce’s post or anyone’s –anybody’s– comments. What the Hell is a quasi-Marxist secularist? (Hell, are there even Marxists left in the world outside of university faculty lounges???)
Can you try that again, Edward TJ? I may need the coloring book version, so go slow (thanks).
The Iraqi Ba’athist regime was largely secular (a main reason we sided with them during the Iran-Iraq War). The political party was (is) also largely Marxist in its philosophy.
The history of the Ba’athist Party and its Pan-Arab movement should be known to anyone who wishes to have a half-way intelligent opinion on Iraq.
Anyways, anyone here really concerned about the fate of LGBT Iraqis?