******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Don't Let the Door...

K. McCaffrey --- One of the things that frustrated me during the height of the Egyptian crisis was that Mubarak looked as if he was getting off scot-free after suppressing freedom in Egypt for so many years. I read an article in Slate about how some of his assets would be frozen or seized, but it still didn't seem like enough:

But the Mubarak family itself has reportedly made out handsomely. Estimates of its total wealth reach $80 billion. (All these numbers, of course, should be taken with a grain of salt.) ... Due to a recent change in Swiss law, however, if Mubarak has secreted illicit money away in a Swiss bank account, Egyptians just might get some of it back. "I can confirm that Switzerland has frozen possible assets of the former Egyptian president with immediate effect," a foreign ministry spokesperson told Reuters on Friday. ... The change to Swiss law makes it easier for the country to freeze dictators' assets even if their countries are in disarray.

Mubarak's most recent behavior seems to corroborate this. According to the Weekly Standard:
Unconfirmed reports are circulating that former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak has fallen into a coma in Sharm al-Sheikh. The independent Egyptian daily Al Masry Al Youm's English-language website says that Mubarak fainted twice during his final speech Thursday night. The report also seems to confirm long-time speculation that it was Egyptian first lady Suzanne Mubarak who was eager to see her son Gamal succeed as president. "You got me into this, you and your mother," Mubarak reportedly told Gamal. "You have ruined my history in Egypt."
Either way, I sincerely hope Mubarak makes a full recovery. I think it is of the utmost importance that he be tried and imprisoned for perverting the law and will of the Egyptian people for so long. Actions have consequences.

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube

Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

Bookmark and Share


  1. Bull. I'm sorry, but this is evidence that, with the best will in the world and despite efforts to avoid it, you still have been infected by your contemporaries' attitudes.

    What I hope is that Mubarak goes somewhere and lives comfortably to a ripe old age, hobnobbing with Saudi princes on an equal basis. This would inspire other despots to imagine that they might be able to do the same thing, making them more willing to let go when challenged. If they all know they've nothing to look forward to but continual persecution, it further inspires them to hang on by any means necessary.

    Revenge can be soul-satisfying, especially in prospect, but the consequences are almost always dire.


  2. Please understand I do not like Mubarak, nor what he stood for, but your accusation against him of "suppressing freedom" in Egypt was a trifle vague. Are you aware of specific charges under Egyptian law? More than merely ignoring the desires of students? I'm asking because I, too, agree somewhat with warlocketx comment. I'm glad he's gone, but consider going after him tooth and toenail now with soft or generic accusations could serve to impede other tyrants from giving up as easily as he. But I could be wrong.

  3. I resist the urge to characterize this post and instead defer to the guaranteed wisdom of an allegedly Chinese proverb quoted by "James Bond" to "Melina Havelock" in *For Your Eyes Only:* "Before setting out upon revenge, first dig two graves."

    The error of revenge is the error of hubris: the assertion that one stands in the place of God, knowing what rewards are due whom and why they are so due. The fever of youth and the senility of old age, both, tempt their slaves to slip the leash of self-criticism and assert an abundance of knowledge unknown to saints and sages.

    Man's laws and courts and separations of powers are at best his best effort, often insufficient but always necessary, to prevent an elevation of hubris into the public seat, to deflect the assertion of omniscience, which revenge is, into ineffectuality.

    The UCMJ of the US DOD anathematizes acts of revenge, including calls or orders for it. Policies and procedures of US law enforcement agencies aim for the same effect. Prosecutions in both jurisdictions occur against acts of revenge and administrative actions in them can occur against calls for revenge.

    The nation already groans and grinds under the weight of a cadre claiming the status of God, asserting that they know what groups and individuals are and should be doing. and what should be done to them, and asserting that they, the cadre, possess knowledge and justification to effect those ends.

  4. Seriously girl, are you twenty-four or something around that? I'd be cautious throwing around accusations or trying to put them into context without a good deal of life experience.

    What did Mubarak do that was bad. What did he do that was good? What kind of nation would Egypt been without him? What was the threats he faced every day (remember his boss was killed by the MB's) that made him act the way he did? Remember where he ruled, in the Middle East. Name four other democracies that offered even the limited opportunities he did.

    Is is a nice guy? I don't know him. But did he rule believing he was doing right by his nation under circumstances that were less than say, where you grew up.

  5. "The use of torture in Egypt has been widely documented. In response to international pressure, Mubarak allowed local elections in 2008, but in 80% of the contests, his party’s candidates ran unopposed. He made it so difficult to register or campaign that turnout was estimated at only 3%. The U.S. gives Egypt $1.3 billion in military aid each year. In 2008, U.S. trade with Egypt hit $8.4 billion." Uhhh, I think that's reprehensible - or at least worthy of a few years in a cell. I don't think my age has much to do with thinking that he's a really terrible person.

  6. Ah, some are defending Mubarak. Well that is interesting.

    So let's see... Mubarak has imprisoned opponent without trial, took "emergency powers" in 1967 and has instated censorship, banned political dissent, legalized imprisonment without trial, tortured prisoner.

    Yes a fine man indeed.

    The argument that he should be left to lead a peaceful life is stupid. Mubarak only resigned to avoid being lynched. If you can be a dictator for 30 years and just take your retirement when things start to get edgy, that's a freebie.

  7. "Defending Mubarak"? Bullshit. The perfect is the enemy of the good.


  8. Put it this way:

    He killed his own people
    Imprisoned the opposition
    Stifled democracy
    Suspended the freedom of speech
    Seized property at will
    Opened fire on unarmed protestors

    That fits Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Mubarak. You can't call one a dictator and the other a friend.

    And, not sure how this conversation about revenge got started. Putting a dictator in prison is not revenge, that is justice.