ISIS Claims Execution of Judge Who Ordered Saddam Hussein Hanging

ISIS is claiming on Twitter it has executed the Judge who ordered the hanging of Saddam Hussein. It says Khalil Hussein Attia,a Jordanian official has confirmed the news, and said Judge Raouf Abdel-Ramen tried to flee disguised as a dancer.

In 2007, Judge Raouf Abdel-Ramen (aka Rashid Abd al-Rahman ) sought asylum to Great Britain but later canceled his application. In 2008, in Iraq, he condemned the hanging.

Several non-English newspapers are also reporting the claimed execution (here too), as is Wikipedia. He was apparently kidnapped a few days ago.

< OIG Report on Postal Service's Use of Mail Covers | NYC to Pay $40 Million to Central Park Five Defendants >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Of course, the first casualty (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 04:34:49 PM EST
    of war is the truth.  Whether or not the judge who ordered the hanging of Saddam was executed as reported, what we can be sure of is that a campaign of propaganda is as important to war as munitions.

    The blitz across Iraq by ISIS was enabled by a coalition of many armed Sunni groups, coalesced by the fervor to seek revenge against the predominately Shia government in Baghdad--a reaction to the errant policies, in their view, of Nouri al Maliki.

    The Baath party of Saddam was banned by the US occupation in 2003.  The Baathists were a pan-Arab, nationalist and secular party. The Naqshbandi, comprised of former members of the banned Baath party, are now one of the key organizations coordinating with ISIS to end the political process we initiated and entrusted to Maliki.

    The execution of the hanging judge, if that is the case, could have been an act of the former Baathists, or a "good will" gesture by ISIS to solidify Baath and other Sunni coalitions, gaining support and acceptance.  

    In any event, this unlikely coalition of Sunni groups is, at present, glued together by the common foe: Shia in Baghdad.  Probably, each feels that they are using the other and will sort things out later.   The danger for us, is that  re-entering Iraq's civil war will only shift the focus from the Sunni groups v. Shia groups, to America. They will sort things out between them later.

    Our role is a risky and dangerous one even with claims of only 300 special forces "advisors", probably  to put lethal eyes on the ground so as to guide our bombing.  Hopefully, the re-entry calculus has not taken into account the advice of those who have been so spectacularly and catastrophically wrong.  It would behoove them all to remain silent on middle east matters, for, say, 100 years.  And, it would behoove this and future administrations to ignore this advice for say, 100 years.  

    Simplistic view of history (none / 0) (#3)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 09:57:24 AM EST
    Please read link

    The view that "The Baathists were a pan-Arab, nationalist and secular party" is not entirely correct. Even if the Baathists in Iraq were "secular", the Baath party leadership was tribal in its instincts. Iraqi Shias were treated as second class citizens even though many Iraqi Shias has fought against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.

    Having said that, I was opposed to our invasion of Iraq in 2003 and am opposed to getting back into the conflict now.



    The Baathist party (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 12:45:19 PM EST
    Had Shia members.  Granted, they often joined the party in order to have the jobs they sought.  There was an avenue though to a secularism that could continue to expand.  Now there is no avenue.

    Prior to our invasion of Iraq, Sunni and Shia could intermarry and did, now the only reason why you would do that is if you had a self destructive disorder.


    My comment was not intended (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 02:53:06 PM EST
    to serve as an historical review of the Baath party since Michel Alfaq.  But rather, to respond to the thread addressing the ISIS claim of executing the judge involved in the hanging of Saddam.  The linked  2007 article from NPR is not at odds with my thinking or counter-intuitive to my analysis of the situation now at hand.

     If you are taking issue with the notion that the Baath Party was not entirely secular since there were tribal instincts among  some of the members, then  that would make my assessment "not entirely correct", but also, not entirely germane to my response.  

    If our discussion leaves the narrow and enters the broad, I am in agreement with your position on the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 and re-entry in 2014.  


    Iraq country studies (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 03:21:39 PM EST

    Prior to the invasion a secular Iraq was very much taking hold.  


    Also, women's rights in pre-invasion Iraq (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 07:06:26 PM EST
    stood head and shoulders above the rights women had (have) in most other Muslim countries, most notably, America's top ally, Saudi Arabia. Women held high plurality positions in medicine, education, and, the Government. And, I believe, the Iraqi Constitution even mandated a minimum of 25% women in Government roles.

    All that collapsed when our puppet, Maliki, wainstalled.

     Prior to the arrival of forces in Iraq in 1991, Iraqi women were free to wear whatever they liked and go wherever they chose. But since the invasion, women's rights have fallen to the lowest in Iraqi history.


    Of course, if these people took over back when... (none / 0) (#2)
    by unitron on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:10:47 PM EST
    ...Saddam would have been one of the first of their rivals up against the wall.

    Which is why there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq until Bush removed Saddam and made it safe for them.