Alaa Has Been Detained

ahmed saad writes "Alaa (read the slashdot interview) was detained yesterday for activism while in a protest to support Egyptian judges . He's one of the most well known Egyptian activists in human rights, free software (leading Egypt LUG) and free speech in Egypt and worldwide. The Egyptian regime is currently trying to suffocate any movements that are active against it's highly inhuman and dirty practices to keep holding power in Egypt yet are trying to fool the world about their support for democracy and free speech. Please don't let that happen! Contact to the Egyptian embassy in your country and/or your country's embassy here in egypt, tell your congressmen and thanks in advance for your support!"

Comments

This is what big government does

[MikeRT]

It serves the interests of those in power. It's why Socialism, Communism, Fascism, "state Capitalism" and all other big government ideologies fail spectacularly. Every law that enacts a new police power that isn't objectively strictly needed to do basic law enforcement, every new agency, every new unneeded spending bill and especially fiat currency play into the hands of the tyrants and would-be tyrants. What has happened here should be a lesson to every Democrat or Republican who believes that if only their guy was in office, big government would work. It doesn't, it just goes after those that challenge it because the more that people start to question small excesses, the more they question their very relationship with the state.

Re:This is what big government does

[lawpoop]

This is not what "big government does". This is what a facist police state does.

I would bet that the governments of the western, industrialized nations, including most of Europe, The US and Canada, Australia and Japan, are "bigger" than Egypts' in any sense you can think of ( budget, tax revenue, number of employees, number of laws, etc. ). However, because their representatives are elected and the government employees consider themselves servants instead of power brokers, the "big governments" in those countries aren't locking up political prisoners.

I agree that locking up political prisoners is bad, but you are attacking the wrong philosophy here. Facism and a police state is the problem, not "big government".

Re:This is what big government does

[Mille Mots]

...The US and Canada, Australia and Japan, are "bigger" than Egypts' in any sense you can think of ( budget, tax revenue, number of employees, number of laws, etc. ). However, because their representatives are elected and the government employees consider themselves servants instead of power brokers, the "big governments" in those countries aren't locking up political prisoners....

If you look at the history of the US representative government (specifically the Legislative and Administrative branches) since, say, the New Deal era, you will see that those elected representatives most certainly consider themselves anything but servants of the people who elected them and pay their salary. Instead, they peddle influence and contracts to the highest bidder (why do you think Porter Goss really retired? The current defense contract scandal/inquiry touches many of your alleged 'servants,' perhaps it even touches him?).

Big Government, Western style, is nothing more than legalized racketeering.

YMMV. HTH. HAND.

--
This sig intentionally left blank

Re:Word Replace

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Replace Egyptian with Ahmedinjad and Egypt with Iran. Kinda creepy.

Funny, that, liberals and Europe want intervention in places like Darfur and Iran but when it came to US securing itself, it was somehow unjustified, even though Saddam was a genocidal maniac and just as ruthless as anyone else in the region.

What is it people? Can't have your cake and eat it too. Civil liberties in America are no different today than they were pre-9/11. In fact I would think with Bush's judges things like the Kelo decision will be overturned.

I call bullshit.

[TripMaster Monkey]

Funny, that, liberals and Europe want intervention in places like Darfur and Iran but when it came to US securing itself, it was somehow unjustified, even though Saddam was a genocidal maniac and just as ruthless as anyone else in the region.

Iraq has never attacked America. Saddam's regime was no threat whatsoever to Americans. If you're going to try to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq on humanitarian grounds, then go ahead and do so, but in case you haven't been reading the papers, the total number of WMDs (the ostensible reason we attacked in the first place) discovered in Iraq remains zero.

Civil liberties in America are no different today than they were pre-9/11.

Nice astroturfing, but all a reasonable person need do to know just how many of their 'inalienable' rights have been stripped away by the current administration is to read it, your smokescreening notwithstanding.

Re:I call bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps because the newspapers only print stories that promote their own agenda. Things are far better off in Iraq than the media would have you believe. But how would you know? You only source your news from sites that reinforce your position. WMD actually have been found in Iraq as well as the intent to manufacture them. Ties to Al Qaeda have also been found. BUt I doubt the media is trumpeting that much.

Iraq attacked and invaded Kuwait. Remember back in 1990? The US and a coalition force went in and kicked him out. No fly zones were set up so that Saddam couldn't mass murder his own people in the north and south, like he had done in the past and post Gulf War when he killed 100,000 - 200,000 shiite in the south. Iraq harbored terrorists and in fact supported the 9/11 attacks. Was the only mid-east country to do so, publically.

UN passed 1441 (which is more than just the WMD issue). There is reports from Saddam's ex-generals that he flew and transported WMD materials to Syria up to 6mos before the invasion. Where are many of the foreign fighters and terrorists coming from today that do most of the killing in Iraq?

An analysis by Alex Jones is who you link too. Insightful indeed....

Re:I call bullshit.

[TripMaster Monkey]

Perhaps because the newspapers only print stories that promote their own agenda.

Oh...you mean like Fox News?

WMD actually have been found in Iraq as well as the intent to manufacture them.

Liar. Cite proof of this or admit your lie.

Ties to Al Qaeda have also been found.

See response to above.

BUt I doubt the media is trumpeting that much.

If WMDs were actually found in Iraq (or ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda were discovered), do you really think the current administration would spare any expense 'trumpeting' this information? And seeing how the new White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow, was a former White House news anchor, your cute little fantasy about the 'liberal media' keeping the American public in the dark to promote 'their agenda' is revealed as the bullshit right-wing propaganda it is.

I could respond to the rest of your 'points' in the same manner, but this is already getting too long, and I don't feel like wading through two more paragraphs of non-sequeturs, ad homenim attacks, and outright lies. Take your astroturfing elsewhere...most readers here are smart enough to not watch Fox News.

Re:I call bullshit.

[Mr. Slippery]

Unless you count continued attempts to shoot down US planes patrolling the UN-sanctioned no-fly zone.

The no-fly zones were illegal creations of the U.S. and Great Britain; a sovereign nation shooting at hostile aircraft that violate its airspace is not creating a threat to the violating nation.

But Saddam was far from a downtrodden lamb.

Yes, Saddam was a bad guy. That does not mean that anything done to oppose him therefore automatically becomes legal, ethical, or smart.

Re:Western Arrogance

[Mr. Slippery]

how dare we judge Egypt by our arrogant, self-centered western views on human rights and justice. I'm sick of phrases like "highly inhuman and dirty practices."...We need to respect Egypt's right to its culture.

Interesting. Would you have applied that to the Holocaust as well, respecting Germany's "right to its culture"? (Yeah, yeah, Godwin's Law; it's still a legitimate question.)

Should northern states have applied that to the Jim Crow South, respecting its "right" to a culture of rascism and segregation?

Should I apply that to my neighborhood as well? If the guy next door is beating his wife, should I respect his family's "right to their culture"?

Egypt is a sovereign nation, and that sets a legal limit on how much other nations can interfere; just as the Constitution sets limits on the ability of states to mess with each other, and laws set limits on my actions against a neighbor I think is engaging in crimes. But the idea that we can't talk to and negotiate with other nations, states, communities, and individual people to attempt to persuade them to change behavior we don't like is silly.

Amazing

[PFI_Optix]

Someone actually modded this post up?

Let's do that word replace, shall we?

The Bush regime is currently trying to suffocate any movements that are active against it's highly inhuman and dirty practices to keep holding power in America yet are trying to fool the world about their support for democracy and free speech.

1) I see no attempts by the administration to "suffocate" those vocal against it. Seen the approval ratings lately? For that matter...are you being suffocated for this criticism?

2) I've yet to see anything that could be described as "highly inhuman and dirty" directly attributed to the presidency.

3) Exactly how are they going to "keep holding power" after 2008?

4) "Their support for democracy and free speech" is apparent in the fact that the 2006 elections are proceeding as normal at this point and the fact that they are not stifling those who openly criticize them (myself included).

There are a lot of things wrong with our current administration, but they are NOT an oppressive dictatorship bent on holding power.

None of those are threats to us.

[Valdrax]

Unless you count continued attempts to shoot down US planes patrolling the UN-sanctioned no-fly zone.

How does trying to shoot our military planes out of the sky of their territory threaten the people of the US? Not that we didn't have really good reasons for the no-fly zone and not that Iraq is some sort of innocent victim, but how does standing up for the defense of their own territory count? Any threat that posed would be eliminated by not being there.

Or the continued development of weapons that violated UN restrictions in terms of range.

The al-Samoud II missile only had a range of 183 km. This isn't enough to even reach Israel or Europe, much less the US and they were thus not enough to count as a threat to the US.

Then there's the financial support for the families of suicide bombers...

This aid was provided exclusively to Palestinian suicide bombers, and not to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist movement. In general, Saddam was wary of religious zealots as he wasn't a very dedicated Muslim himself (despite peppering his speech with religious phraseology post Gulf War) but saw the Palestinian movement as both a movement that posed no threat to him and a good way to earn political capital with other Arab neighbors. This was a threat to Israel and not the US.

But Saddam was far from a downtrodden lamb.

Saddam was a bad guy, but he was hardly a threat to the US. Heck, he was barely a threat to Israel which was the enemy within closest striking distance and provided most of that threat by easing the burdens left to their families by suicide bombers.

If we were looking to take on actual threats capable of delivering a nuclear attack on the US, topple a cruel and sadistic tyrant, and damn the consequences internationally, then why is Kim Jong-Il still in power? Why the paper tiger instead of the guy that has missles capable of reaching the US -- the guy that has nuclear warheads? Even the argument of "saving the Iraqis" pales compared to the intimidation, brainwashing, and malnourishment that the North Koreans are suffering.

Re:None of those are threats to us.

[Chris Burke]

then why is Kim Jong-Il still in power? Why the paper tiger instead of the guy that has missles capable of reaching the US -- the guy that has nuclear warheads?

Question (probably rhetorical), meet answer. We didn't attack North Korea because North Korea is actually scary. Hell, it's the same reason we haven't done anything to Iran, who is far more scary and far more of a threat to us than Iraq ever was. Not even our delusional administration could convince themselves that invading Iran was a good idea.

No, we invaded Iraq because it wasn't a serious threat. It was a convenient target. Much like the intelligence that said Iraq had WMD -- the surest sign this wasn't true being our willingness to invade -- all of our stated reasons for invading are false.

Re:Word Replace

[Guuge]

Anyone who believes that copyright legislation is more serious than the prospect of a police state is living in a fantasy land. Anyone who makes excuses for their 'pet' president on a sketchy historical basis is not only committing a logical fallacy but also playing petty politics. It's hypocritical for people who savagely criticized Clinton to give Bush a free pass for measureably worse behavior.

So save your invectives. Most of the people you're arguing with didn't like Clinton much either, but can at least recognize the lesser of two evils.

Re:That's a little bit too much.

[Guuge]

Bush can't hold a candle to Mubarak

You have to give him credit for trying. Without a real coup, you can't just march into the White House and announce that you're starting a dictatorship. It takes time, extreme nationalism, an "enemy" that we're always at war with, and the gradual erosion of rights in the name of security and patriotism. Bush and Mubarak aren't in the same position, but you might consider them of a common mind.

I call you naive

[TripMaster Monkey]

So because a news organiziation admits bias, that automatically moots all their points?

In a word, yes.

A news organization that is biased is no longer objective, and is therefore worth much less than an unbiased news source. Fox News is demonstrably biased, so much so that their 'news' is worthless.

Check here to see just how much Rupert Murdoch has prostituted his 'news' program in the service of his right-wing ideology.