Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interpol

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interpol

    Is this what its for?

    U.S. Pressing Interpol to Deny Egypt's Request to Arrest NGO Workers
    By Sara Sorcher

    Updated: April 5, 2012 | 10:35 a.m.
    April 4, 2012 | 6:28 p.m.

    AP Photo/Laurent CiprianiThe Interpol logo is seen inside the Interpol headquarters in Lyon, central France, in 2010.
    The Obama administration is petitioning Interpol to deny Egypt’s request for the arrest of American and other nongovernmental workers accused of illegally operating democracy programs and stirring unrest, in a push to prevent further escalation of the planned prosecution that sparked the worst crisis in U.S.-Egypt relations in three decades.

    According to people familiar with the case, State Department counsel Harold Koh and Justice Department Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz are trying to convince Interpol to dismiss as “politically motivated” Egypt’s request for worldwide notices seeking the arrest of some personnel from several nongovernmental organizations that receive U.S. funding.

    From National Journal:

    AFGHANISTAN
    Details Emerge on Coming U.S. Offensive in Eastern Afghanistan

    CAMPAIGN 2012The Hard Road Ahead for Rick Santorum

    CAMPAIGN 2012
    Romney: 'We Won 'Em All!'Cairo’s continued plans to prosecute the NGO workers is a sharp rebuke to the U.S., which has been pressing Egypt to drop the criminal charges against 43 nongovernmental workers—17 of them Americans—from the Washington-based National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute, Freedom House, and International Center for Journalists.

    Tensions between Washington and Cairo eased on March 1 when seven American democracy workers were allowed to leave Egypt after their institutions paid some $5 million in “bail” to lift the travel ban against them. These Americans—including IRI’s Sam LaHood, son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood—still face charges in a trial slated to resume on Tuesday, but are not currently wanted for arrest in Egypt.

    Shortly after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton signed off on military aid to Cairo, Egypt asked Interpol to issue so-called red notices for other nongovernmental workers who were not in Egypt at the time, or in some cases, who never worked there at all. As many as 10 of them are Americans. Among them are prominent figures in Washington, like Freedom House’s Charles Dunne, a former U.S. diplomat who also served on the National Security Council under President George W. Bush.

    If convicted, they could face a hefty financial penalty and up to five years in an Egyptian prison.

    The State and Justice departments, as well as Interpol headquarters in France and its bureau in Washington, all declined to comment on Egypt’s request for the red notices, which are usually viewed as precursors to filing extradition papers. “The United States is making known in every relevant forum, and before every relevant agency, its objection to these politically motivated trials in Egypt,” State Department spokesman Edgar Vasquez told National Journal.

    Successfully convincing Interpol that Egypt’s prosecution is politically motivated would prevent the organization from issuing the red notices, because its constitution mandates neutrality and strictly forbids it to undertake any intervention in matters of “political, military, religious or racial character.”

    The United States, unlike many of the 190 countries participating in the international police organization, is not obligated to arrest anyone on its soil subject to a red notice because it does not view this as “probable cause” for an arrest warrant, according to Douglas McNabb, a Washington-based international criminal lawyer. Individuals wanted under red notices can appeal Interpol’s decision in a process that can take months or even years, said McNabb, who specializes in Interpol notice removal and international extradition.

    “It’s serious when someone files a red notice,” McNabb told NJ. “It’s used to try and locate an individual with a view of later having them put in extradition proceedings.” Those who are listed under Interpol’s red notices are effectively “landlocked,” McNabb said, because they are likely to be arrested if they travel to other countries.

    There may be even bigger legal battles ahead for the U.S. government if Egypt chooses to follow up with extradition requests. In that case, the U.S. would have to abide by its extradition treaty with Cairo and arrest the suspects, McNabb said. A U.S. judge would then decide whether the individual is extraditable or not. However, the U.S. government would be forced into the uncomfortable position of having to represent Egypt in court-- against the American defendants it considers to be wrongly accused of violating Egypt's highly restrictive laws on civil society.

    The Egyptians’ acceleration in its planned prosecution of the pro-democracy workers is sure to anger U.S. lawmakers and activists who were concerned Cairo might be emboldened by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s recent decision to waive new congressional conditions on the package of $1.3 billion in military aid.

    “My worry is the [Egyptians] are going to feel they now have a green light to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law,” Dunne told National Journal, referring to Clinton’s decision to waive restrictions that would have required her to certify Cairo was respecting the transition to democracy, and implementing policies to protect due process of law and freedom of expression, association, and religion.

    Fayza Abul Naga, the Egyptian minister who coordinates foreign aid, has for years tried to clamp down on these NGOs and spearheaded the recent investigation of what she called their “illegal” activities. Naga, in a March 9 op-ed in the Washington Post, blasted Washington’s decision to redirect some funds to programs run by local and American civil society groups to aid the democratic transition in Egypt after Hosni Mubarak’s ouster.

    IRI’s Egypt country director Sam LaHood, has dismissed as “malarkey” the claims by Naga, who is a holdover from Mubarak’s government.

    “She’s alleged that the U.S. government is actively trying to sow unrest, trying to divide Egypt, and undermine the revolution,” LaHood told National Journal upon returning to Washington last month. “For a minister of another country to allege those things in a court of law and in public seems outrageous, and she points to our organizations as tools that are doing that.”

    Despite the politicized pall over the case, the NGO workers face technical charges of managing an unregistered international organization. “They sound like the things you might get a $20 ticket for-- but are being prosecuted as criminal charges,” Dunne said. The Egyptian government had for years left pending the applications of some groups Washington considers most critical to democracy programs in the country-- like those of IRI and NDI-- even as it tacitly allowed them to operate.

    Dunne, who has no plans to return to Egypt, said his lawyers plan to argue Freedom House did “nothing wrong” in court next week. The group had submitted its registration papers just before the late December raid in which the Egyptian authorities seized all their equipment and paperwork and sealed the offices. IRI and NDI had been granted permission to monitor the parliamentary elections just before Egyptian prosecutors raided their bureaus, backed by police and military forces carrying machine guns.

    Freedom House’s Sherif Mansour, an Egyptian who just received American citizenship days ago, has not been in Egypt since July and was surprised to find out about the charges against him through a news conference in February. “They one-sidedly declared me a fugitive,” said Mansour, who like Dunne still hasn’t seen any official documents proving he is actually being charged with crimes in Egypt.

    “That shows how political this case is,” Mansour said. “…It is basically meant to indict people in front of the media and publish their image from the start."

    Meanwhile, the prosecution has effectively sidelined some U.S.-funded democracy programs in the Egypt. “Our ability to operate as a fully functioning operation is nonexistent at the moment,” Dunne said. With Egypt investigating as many as 400 organizations in the country, Dunne said, “there’s a terrible concern… about the chilling effect on Egyptian civil society.”

    Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
    National Journal is a research and advisory services company based in Washington, D.C. offering services in government affairs.


    ...it's episodes like this that make Americans look askance at "international justice" treaties.
    No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

  • #2
    "Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum."

    Comment


    • #3
      Yeah, we've had our citizens wrongly ****ed over by US renditions. I'm having a hard time mustering sympathy in this case.
      "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
      "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #4
        Interpol is for chasing international jewel thieves in comedic, especially humiliating fashion:

        Click image for larger version

Name:	zenigata.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	49.4 KB
ID:	9093052
        “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
        "Capitalism ho!"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Wezil View Post
          Yeah, we've had our citizens wrongly ****ed over by US renditions. I'm having a hard time mustering sympathy in this case.
          There are no Canadians among the NGOs being attacked?
          No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

          Comment


          • #6
            Probably, but I'm responding to the point/tone of the thread.

            A US'ian *****ing b/c their citizens are being presumably mistreated is pretty rich.
            "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
            "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm sorry, but do you think that we should allow these people to get thrown in Egyptian prison when they've almost certainly done nothing wrong? Do you think they don't have rights because they're from the US?
              If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
              ){ :|:& };:

              Comment


              • #8
                Yeah, I guess looking after our own is pretty unfashionable, eh?
                No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
                  I'm sorry, but do you think that we should allow these people to get thrown in Egyptian prison when they've almost certainly done nothing wrong? Do you think they don't have rights because they're from the US?
                  Nope, and I also don't think it's alright for the US to do it. Look up "a little rich".
                  "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
                  "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post
                    Yeah, I guess looking after our own is pretty unfashionable, eh?
                    You too should do some research, since you seem unaware of it's meaning.
                    "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
                    "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Let's not conveniently overlook the at the front of the thread title and the "...it's episodes like this that make Americans look askance at "international justice" treaties".

                      It's clear what this thread was intended for.
                      "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
                      "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wonder what would happen if say germans wanted to introduce democracy, freedom of speech, fighting agaist state torture etc. in america. Would that be accepted by american authorities ?
                        With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                        Steven Weinberg

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You mean they're not?
                          No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            As I understand it the military really didn't want outside election monitors they didn't control and they sure didn't want NGOs organizing people to vote or to protest the military's roll backs of promised democratic reforms. The Egyptian military started arresting NGO people and expelling NGO groups because those groups were trying to hold the military to promises it made about real democratic reforms which the military now wants to pretend never happened.
                            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Alaa Al Aswany.Best-selling Egyptian author and columnist

                              When Will They Stop Insulting Us?

                              A few weeks ago the German public discovered that the president, Christian Wulff, had failed to declare a large private loan from a friend while prime minister of Lower Saxony. When prosecutors asked parliament to lift Wulff's immunity as president to investigate possible favors, Wulff resigned. In another scandal several weeks earlier, British Energy Minister Chris Huhne had to resign after he was charged with attempting to disrupt the course of justice by persuading his former wife to take penalty points he would have acquired through a traffic offence. The British public saw the minister's alleged conduct as unethical, which forced him to resign from his post. Such incidents happen all the time in democratic countries because the principle there is that government officials must be truthful and honest, and that if they get involved in any deceitful or illegal activity then they are not worthy of their office.

                              I remembered this as I was following the scandal over the sudden departure of the foreign defendants in the NGO funding case, which is still pending before the Egyptian courts. It was the Military Council that brought up the issue in the first place under mysterious circumstances, when it chose certain organizations and charged their leaders with receiving foreign funding. The strange thing was that these organizations had been working for a whole year right in front of Military Council, which at the time did not object to them. It is even stranger that the organizations repeatedly applied to the authorities to register but the Egyptian government dragged its feet on issuing them licenses.

                              I don't agree with foreign financing in principle and I hope legislation is passed to ban it outright, but it's odd that the Military Council's anger should be directed only at NGOs, while they ignore the religious associations and political parties that, according to government reports, have received hundreds of millions of dollars from the Gulf States. As usual the Military Council has applied a double standard, exempting its friends the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis from any oversight while launching a sweeping attack on civil society organizations, accusing them of creating chaos and of a plan to divide Egypt into five small states. The trial became a big media show in which the Military Council tried to portray itself as an ultra-patriotic body that would never submit to Western pressures.

                              Then, suddenly, the scandal broke: The judges in the case recused themselves from the case in protest of the pressures exerted by Judge Abdel Muizz (prompted by the Military Council) to lift the travel ban on the defendants. At that point Judge Abdel Muizz hurriedly transferred the case to circuit court headed by a judge who is a former State Security officer, who lifted the travel ban. An American plane landed at Cairo Airport and flew them out of the country in violation of basic legal principles.

                              All Egyptians felt insulted to see their national sovereignty and the laws of their country openly flouted -- the same humiliation they felt when they saw Egyptian women dragged along the ground and molested or when they saw young men run over by armored vehicles, blinded by shotgun pellets and shot dead with live ammunition fired by Egyptian troops. The contrast between the U.S. government, which fights to defend its citizens even when they are on trial, and the Military Council, which has offended the dignity of Egyptians again and again, leads me to ask: Why do Western governments protect their citizens while the authorities in Egypt constantly humiliate their own? I attribute this to three factors:

                              First, the nature of the system of government. The way a ruler comes to power defines his conduct in power. A president who comes to power though free elections is always subject to the will and oversight of the people. He cannot turn into a despot and ignore people's rights. The Military Council is now ruling Egypt by the same methods as Mubarak and holds office because it has the power needed to stay in office. So naturally they don't recognize the rights of Egyptians because they didn't choose the Council and they do not have the means to change it if they wanted to. The Military Council, like all despots, takes no account of the people. This contempt for the people usually spreads from the ruler to his ministers because they know that no one can hold them accountable. They never resign, and they ingratiate themselves with the ruler and flatter him because they know that as long as the ruler is happy with them he will retain them, however much they insult, plunder and lie to the people.

                              Second, the level of judicial independence. The judiciary in democratic countries is completely independent and no one, not even the head of state, can intervene in its decisions. The most senior official knows that the most junior prosecutor can summon him, indict him and potentially order him detained. Being prosecuted is a real nightmare that haunts any official in a democratic system, so they are careful to respect the law.

                              By contrast, the judicial system in Egypt is not independent, but in practice subject to the authority of the head of state, because the judicial inspectorate, which controls incentives and penalties for the judiciary, is subordinate to the minister of justice, who is in turn appointed by the president of the republic (or the Military Council). In the end the minister of justice fully controls the fate of judges. On top of that, it is the president who appoints the public prosecutor, who has the authority to investigate and indict. There is also the system of internal secondment, which allows some judges to work as consultants for large fees in certain ministries at the same time as they are judging cases, fundamentally undermining the principle of judicial neutrality.

                              To be fair, although the judicial system is not independent, most Egyptian judges are independent as a matter of conscience. But those who are pay a high price in terms of income and peace of mind. The rejection by the Cairo Criminal Court chaired by Judge Mohamed Mahmoud Shukri of the Military Council's pressures is just one example of what thousands of Egyptian judges do commonly in cases that are not famous and about which we do not hear. In 2005, more than two-thirds of Egypt's judges fought to achieve independence for the judicial system, and history will recall that these honest judges refused to bear false witness to rigged elections.

                              They are fighting, not for the sake of privileges or gain, but in defense of justice, although a small number of judges have been implicated for cooperating with the despotic regime, including participation in election rigging. In the wake of the revolution, many people called for the judiciary to be purged of the judges who supervised the rigged elections, but the Military Council retained them because it needs their services. The supreme judicial council even prepared a comprehensive law enshrining complete judicial independence but the Military Council blocked it because it would have deprived the council of control of the judiciary. Egyptians cannot regain their dignity and their rights without an independent judicial system.

                              Third, the prevalent concept of religion. In democratic countries no officials speak about their religion or their religious observances, but it is morals alone that are the criteria for judging people. You have the right to be Christian, Muslim, Jewish or embrace any religion, and it's up to you. Freedom of belief and worship are guaranteed to all. But your religion is your own affair, whereas your performance at work, your honesty, your diligence and the way you deal with others are the real. The head of state only has to lie once and his political future is over, he's dismissed from office and loses trust.

                              In democratic states, morals are the measure of piety, and, on the contrary, the superficial manifestations of piety alone are not proof of morals. This concept forms the essence of true Islam. Justice, freedom and equality are the fundamental principles which Islam was revealed to defend, and everything else is less important. But many people's understanding of Islam has become superficial and limited, particularly in the Parliament.

                              I now believe that many members of parliament have a limited and superficial concept of piety. Belief is detached from behavior. Appearances and rituals are now more important than what one does. These members of parliament are trying to pass a resolution requiring schools to suspend classes for the noon prayer, while they have done nothing to avenge those killed in the revolution and are incapable of criticizing the Military Council, which is responsible for massacres in which dozens of young Egyptians have been killed. In the case of the Port Said massacre they made do with condemning the Interior Ministry and did not dare utter a single word about the Military Council's responsibility.

                              Many members of parliament have long beards and prayer marks on their foreheads, but they have no qualms about applying double standards in order to please the Military Council. When MP Ziad el-Eleimy made a remark that insulted Field Marshal Tantawi, the pious members of parliament rose up to punish Eleimy, even though he made his remark outside parliament. Yet when a member makes disgraceful accusations inside parliament against a major national figure such as Mohamed El-Baradei, they refuse to reprimand the offender, and instead applaud and congratulate him. They applaud someone who accuses El-Baradei of treason, even though this is the same El-Baradei for whom the Muslim Brotherhood collected 600,000 signatures in support. But that happened before the revolution, when the Brotherhood needed El-Baradei's support. Now they need the Military Council's support.

                              Their positions change according to their interests. This political inconsistency is incompatible with morality, and everything that is incompatible with morality is of necessity incompatible with religion. Yet history teaches us that if we confine religion to formalities and ritual we may end up behaving immorally with a completely clear conscience. Egypt will change only if our concept of religion changes.

                              As much as it is an insult to our national dignity, the scandal over the sudden departure of the foreign defendants in the NGO case makes us face up to an important fact: Hosni Mubarak has fallen but the system he set up is still governing Egypt. The Military Council is an extension of Mubarak in ideology and in practice. They insult Egyptians exactly as Mubarak used to insult them. They will not stop insulting us until we achieve the objectives of revolution and set up a just and free state.
                              As much as it is an insult to our national dignity, the scandal over the sudden departure of the foreign defendants in the NGO case makes us face up to an important fact: Hosni Mubarak has fallen but the system he set up is still governing Egypt.
                              No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X