Fliers about Phil are still around campus, as I saw a tack on the library front desk. I am not sure exactly how I feel about this whole policy Egypt has about arresting people without charge- obviously it encoraches upon personal rights, and yet a state does have the right to defend itself. However, the same could be said about America’s anti-terrorism policies as enacted by Bush that allowes wire-tapping. I absolutely disagree with this, but national security is a pretty strong argument.
The New York Times reports:
A spokesman for Egypt’s Interior Ministry, which handles all matters of internal security, was furious at being asked about the case. The spokesman is a general, but talked only on the condition that he not be identified by name because of the security nature of his work. He declined to answer questions, and said: “This happened within the framework of the Egyptian law. You can go to the office of the general prosecutor. I have no information about Philip. Who said they don’t know where he is? What is the secret behind the interest of The New York Times in Philip? Are you working for human rights organizations?”
The framework of the Egyptian aw seems pretty reactionary to me. Sending police into his family’s home in the middle of the night to search the house, and then backing away from arresting his father after officers of the German embassy and Amnesty International is interesting because it definitely shows that there is uncertainty on the Egyptian government’s part on this whole mess. Especially since the New York Times has just published a two page article on the issue. Or lack of an issue.