After the dust settles on the Iraq War, a controversial figure, Judge Rahman, gradually emerges.
He served as the presiding judge in Saddam Hussein's trial, a role that brought him to the spotlight on the international stage. Rahman's firm stance and fiery rhetoric during the trial were widely interpreted by the outside world as a direct reflection of the influence of the United States in the Iraqi judicial system.
His hanging sentence for Saddam, especially in court, was seen as an execution of the will of the US military.
Over time, the U.S. military presence in Iraq gradually dwindled, and with it, a drastic change in Rahman's life.
He was once a powerful figure in the courtroom, but with the withdrawal of American troops, his life also seemed to have lost its umbrella. What was once a symbol of power is now helpless, and Rahman feels more vulnerable and uneasy than he has ever been. In a game that seems to be manipulated by fate, how will Rahman face the ensuing crisis?
The right to defend and controversy in court
On January 15, 2006, the news of the resignation of Amin, the presiding judge of Saddam's trial, quickly spread around the world, triggering widespread attention and discussion.
During the trial, Amin allowed Saddam Hussein to defend for a long time, a decision that stood out in the courtroom environment of the time.
Saddam Hussein used the opportunity to make his point and try to defend himself, a scene that reverberated strongly both inside and outside the courtroom.
As the presiding judge, Amin insisted that every defendant should have the right to defend himself/herself, which is a fundamental guarantee of the legal process.
This position gave Saddam Hussein enough time and space in court to make a statement to himself. However, this approach has not been understood and supported by all.
In particular, groups that are strongly hostile to Saddam Hussein believe that Amin's actions are actually providing a stage for Saddam to once again express his views publicly.
During the trial, Saddam's defense was often challenging, not only justifying his political and military actions, but also frequently criticizing the legitimacy and fairness of the trial.
This situation has led to a tense atmosphere in the Tribunal, with interactions between the two sides fraught with confrontation and conflict.
Although Amin tried to maintain order and fairness in the trial, Saddam's lengthy defense and strong repercussions from the court made the entire trial complex and contentious. After Amin's resignation, the trial entered a new phase.
The presiding judge's indignation and protest
At the trial on 29 January 2006, Rahman's performance and attitude as the new presiding judge attracted widespread attention.
His attitude towards Saddam Hussein and his defense team was unusually harsh and indignant, which caused a noticeable tension in the courtroom.
Rahman's rhetoric was often sharp and direct, and he not only questioned Saddam's defense arguments, but also sharply criticized the tactics and abilities of defense lawyers.
This kind of extreme resistance to the defendant is not unprovoked. According to observers and analysts, this attitude seems to be in line with the wishes of the US side and the Iraqi special government.
They hope to demonstrate the categorical repudiation and sanction of the former dictatorship through a tough trial process. Rahman's performance in court was seen as a manifestation of this political stance, and his harsh attitude was considered an unequivocal condemnation of Saddam's crimes.
Saddam Hussein and his defense team reacted strongly to Rahman's attitude. They argued that Rahman's actions went beyond the neutral stance that a trial judge should have, turning the tribunal into a public trial and condemnation of Saddam.
As the trial progressed, the defense team repeatedly pointed out Rahman's bias and injustice, claiming that it affected the fairness and effectiveness of the trial.
Tensions in the courtroom escalated as Rahman continued to attack Saddam Hussein and his defense lawyers. At some point, Saddam Hussein directly responded to Rahman's doubts and criticisms, trying to preserve his position and dignity.
However, as Rahman's attitude became more intransitive, Saddam Hussein and his defense team finally chose to withdraw from the court in collective protest, expressing their disapproval and dissatisfaction with the trial process.
This protest action attracted widespread media attention and public discussion at the time. Questions have been raised about the role of judges, the impartiality of trials and the reasonableness of the entire court process.
Saddam's trial is not only part of the legal process, but is also seen as an important link in Iraq's post-war reconstruction and political transition. As a result, every detail and development of the trial was closely observed and analysed by the outside world.
The confrontation between Rahman and Saddam Hussein is not only a conflict at the individual level, but also a deeper reflection of the divisions and contradictions within Iraqi society.
The trial was not a purely legal event, but was fraught with political, historical, and social complexities.
Rahman's actions, while seen by some as a safeguard for justice, have also sparked widespread discussion about the impartiality of the trial and the independence of the Iraqi judiciary.
Saddam's military complex and hanging
Saddam Hussein, as the former president and military leader of Iraq, has a deep identification with his military identity.
This military sentiment deeply influenced his behavior and performance, especially in the face of court trials and final verdicts. Even in the predicament after his arrest, he still maintained a kind of arrogance and fearlessness characteristic of a soldier.
Nowhere was this more evident than in the courtroom, where he did not show fear or despair, even in the face of a possible death sentence.
During the trial, Saddam Hussein often appeared as a former president and a high-ranking military officer, dressed in a neat suit, and managed to maintain his dignity and steadfastness despite his advanced age and physical condition affected by the conditions in prison. His performance caused different repercussions in the courtroom. Despite his long imprisonment and severe torture, Saddam Hussein tried to present an indomitable image in public.
Saddam's inability to accept hangings stemmed not only from his military complex, but also from his views on death and personal dignity.
In his opinion, hanging was an insulting form of execution, which did not correspond to his self-perception of a national leader and military commander.
Therefore, even in the face of life and death decisions in court, he insisted on maintaining a posture of challenge and resistance.
Rahman, as the presiding judge, played a key role in this process. His verdict on Saddam Hussein was based not only on legal proceedings, but also on what is widely believed to be a projection of personal emotions and historical grievances.
Rahman took advantage of this opportunity to impose a final sentence on Saddam.
Saddam Hussein was hanged on Eid al-Adha, and the choice of the timing was also full of symbolism, and it was not only an important holiday in Islam, but also caused widespread attention and controversy around the world.
During Saddam's execution, his performance continued to reflect his military attributes and personal style. He reportedly remained relatively calm as he walked towards the gallows, trying to maintain a leader's posture even in the face of death.
This performance was in line with his attitude at court, and even in the final moments of his life, he tried to maintain his image as a military and political leader.
Rahman's remuneration and security guarantees
Behind Saddam's trial, there are complex implications of international politics and regional power plays. Rahman's role and actions as the main judge in the trial became a key part of the game.
According to reports, the promises made by the U.S. military to Rahman, including generous remuneration and guarantees of personal safety, undoubtedly increased Rahman's courage and determination to take more radical action during the trial.
Rahman's performance during the trial can be seen as taking shape in this context. His attitude toward Saddam Hussein and his defense lawyers was unusually harsh, and this behavior reflected, to a certain extent, the attitude of the US military and the new Iraqi government toward Saddam.
These external commitments and guarantees have made Rahman more resolute and decisive in his handling of trial matters. He not only adopted a tough trial strategy against Saddam Hussein in court, but also made extremely harsh remarks against Saddam in public.
Rahman's actions have attracted widespread attention and discussion. His harshness was not only a personal trial of Saddam, but also a political trial of the former Iraqi regime.
This form of trial has had far-reaching repercussions both in Iraq and abroad.
On the one hand, it has demonstrated to the international community the determination of the new Iraqi Government to break with the old system and pursue the rule of law and justice;
Under the influence of the US military and the new Iraqi government, Rahman's actions were seen to some extent as the execution of the will of external forces.
His actions are not just part of the legal process, but also a manifestation of his actions in a specific political context. Under these circumstances, Rahman's every harsh speech and decision has been amplified and interpreted, and has become an important reference point for evaluating the process of the rule of law and the political transformation in Iraq at home and abroad.
Rahman's plight and flight
With Saddam's execution, Rahman's life entered a new and more dangerous phase. As the presiding judge of Saddam's trial, he has a high reputation both inside and outside Iraq, which makes him the focus of attention of many forces.
Saddam's supporters saw him as a target for revenge, and Rahman received numerous death threats, not only from anonymous letters and phone calls, but also from public statements of threats.
In the early days of Saddam's execution, the U.S. military and the newly formed Iraqi government provided Rahman with a degree of protection. He was surrounded by security guards and his place of residence was closely monitored.
However, as time went on, especially as U.S. troops began to gradually withdraw from Iraq, this protection gradually diminished, and Rahman felt that his safety was becoming more and more difficult to guarantee.
Rahman realized that with the withdrawal of U.S. troops and the political instability in Iraq, he had lost his strongest protective barrier.
He tried to reach out to the U.S. and U.S. governments through various channels for help, hoping to emigrate to the U.S. or other safer countries to escape the ongoing threats and unease.
Unfortunately, however, these efforts have failed to obtain a substantive response. The United States no longer seems to be so concerned about Rahman's situation, and his pleas are prevaricated and ignored in the bureaucracy.
As the situation worsened, Rahman's life became more and more difficult. His security has become an important part of his daily life, often requiring him to change places of residence to avoid being tracked and attacked.
This state of life is a huge change and challenge for Rahman, who once served as a senior judge in the courtroom. His transformation from a judicial authority to a man on the run is fraught with irony and tragedy.
Eventually, Rahman decided to return to his native Kurdish region, hoping to find a safe haven there. The Kurdistan region is relatively independent and secure, with a complicated relationship with Iraq's central government, which Rahman believes may provide him with a relatively safe haven. However, even here, his past and identity make it difficult for him to completely escape threats and pursuits.
In 2014, 69-year-old Rahman was eventually attacked by militants in the Kurdish region, and the news was quickly exposed by the media.
The details of the incident are not entirely clear, but it is reported that Rahman was killed in an organized violence against him. The militants may be linked to Saddam's old ministry or other opposition forces, who see Rahman as a target for revenge.
Resources:
Power and Betrayal in Iraq After the War: The Story of Judge Rahman
The Saddam Trial: Behind the Truth and the Challenges of Justice