http://www.theworld.org/2011/02/09/egypt-omar-suleiman-second-in-command/
Several people have asked me to make a clear statement on the rendition program and the part that Omar Suleimen played in it. First - this arrangement was made between the US Government and that of Egypt, not between CIA and Omar Suleiman. Whatever his agency did in accord with the agreement we Americans as a whole should take responsibility for whether we had the opportunity to vote for the program or not. Second - He is and was a public servant, not a "loose cannon" as is implied by many. Third - The present situation in Egypt is so serious and complex that the ability of individuals to contribute to good outcomes should not be decided on the basis of single issues.
My opposition to the use of barbarous (by my definition) methods of warfare is long established. pl
These interviews are superb. I listened to all three (Batchelor, BBC, and World). I hope you keep doing them and keep posting them here.
Just recently discovered this website and have been working my way back through the posts. A treasure trove.
Posted by: Daniel Gackle | 10 February 2011 at 02:12 AM
Sometimes events take over... if it's true.
"King Abdullah talked with Obama about the situation in Egypt over the phone yesterday. Obama and the King got into a heated debate about their opinions of what Hosni Mubarak should do. After the phone call sources stated that King Abdullah was furious and then suffered a sudden heart attack. Doctors ran to his rescue but were unable to save him. He was pronounced dead, but his death was not reported due to the sensitive conditions that exist in the region. The Saudi Arabian government will reject this claim; but the ball is in their court to prove that he is alive."
Long live the King!
What I can say is that the setting described in the quote is very heart attack conducive. No snow to shovel in the Kingdom, but those angry outbursts...
Posted by: arbogast | 10 February 2011 at 07:46 AM
The "Rendition" program was foreshadowed when the Geneva Convention Article 3 was studied in detail during the Reagan Administration. The conclusion that "terrorists" did not have the protection of the Geneva Convention and should be separately addressed by International Agreements I think was correct. Others disagree. I do not however agree with the DOJ torture memos of John Yoo and is concept of a Unitary Presidency is not a correct legal position although arguably has some merit. This was all foreordained in the 70's and 80's by what the various WH and AG's decided to address. But most of that effort was kept secret and few actual cases and controversies arose. Unfortunately the most expert National Security lawyer ever in DOJ, Mary Lawton, is long deceased. International Law with respect to non-state actors "terrorists" has yet to be decided or written and certainly domestic US law on the same will await SCOTUS rulings well down towards the end of this decade. If OBAMA has two more SCOTUS picks would be helpful if he picked someone with experience in National Security Law and International Law. Amateur night is not appropriate for SCOTUS.
Rendition did not start with the BUSH administration.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 10 February 2011 at 09:14 AM
" The conclusion that "terrorists" did not have the protection of the Geneva Convention and should be separately addressed by International Agreements ..."
WRC, isn't the issue then who is a terrorist? While I agree the actual terrorists need to be addressed in a specific legal framework I think none currently exists. It seems that many were accused of 'terrorism' and off into limbo they went. That's the problem with Gitmo, accusation is guilt and there is no virtually recourse once accused.
Posted by: Fred | 10 February 2011 at 10:48 AM
I appreciated your defence of Suleiman, since I felt you "liked" the man.
Interestingly partly your wishes seem to come true. Mubarak steps back, now the question is who will be in charge Omar Suleiman, the speaker of NPD, or the military, as Harper suggested.
disclosure: I am not a fan of Harper. Thus given the above possibilities I favor your view.
Posted by: LeaNder | 10 February 2011 at 11:12 AM
But, it probable can't happen since Suleiman will only be thought of as an appointee of Mubarak.
Posted by: LeaNder | 10 February 2011 at 11:17 AM
Col. Lang, i'm having a hard time parsing this sentence:
Whatever his agency did in accord with the agreement we Americans as a whole should take responsibility for whether we had the opportunity to vote for the program or not.
Are you saying that 'we' own the mess that successive US govt regimes and our security apparatus have secretly wrought in the ME and elsewhere over the years? If so, that is at odds with the firewall that the US govt. has erected around foreign policy and intelligence programs, in order to prevent us from even knowing what is being done in 'our' name – and with our money! Are 'we' also responsible for the policy of covert ops in Pakistan as well?
Posted by: Roy G. | 10 February 2011 at 12:23 PM
RoyG
Of course. pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 10 February 2011 at 01:49 PM
Are you saying that 'we' own the mess that successive US govt regimes and our security apparatus have secretly wrought in the ME and elsewhere over the years? If so, that is at odds with the firewall that the US govt. has erected around foreign policy and intelligence programs, in order to prevent us from even knowing what is being done in 'our' name – and with our money! Are 'we' also responsible for the policy of covert ops in Pakistan as well?
Did you vote for Obama? Did you vote for McCain?
Not only do we own it, the vast majority of Americans aren't even paying attention anymore. The media is complicit. The media doesn't "do" war anymore. War does not garner ratings or blog hits. No wonder "lefty" blogs are collapsing. Goodbye, Huffington Post--and goodbye to its endemic anti-war nonsense. Peace doesn't get the hippies out of their funk anymore. Apple's crappy products do.
Whatever your political stripe, we have just about the same policy we would have had, regardless of who might have won in 2008. I happen to think McCain would have flip-flopped and gotten us out sooner. Either way, Petraeus is running things and that's how it would have ended up under McCain anyway.
The irony here is that the young President who has never known what war is or what military service is has become the hawk no one thought they were voting for. Permanent, permanent war is what we will now have for the next three Presidential election cycles, I believe. Our economy would collapse were this not so.
Posted by: Norman Rogers | 10 February 2011 at 02:54 PM
Norman Rogers
My politics are none of your business. pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 10 February 2011 at 03:30 PM
disclosure: I am not a fan of Harper.
well, it's not about being a fan of anybody maybe. Now a variation of Harper's nightingale may still be on the horizon. What is going on in the Egypt army?
Posted by: LeaNder | 10 February 2011 at 05:25 PM
My politics are none of your business. pl
Yes. The above was directed respectfully at Mr. Roy G. in a rhetorical way.
Whatever a person's politics, I see little difference between an Obama or McCain Administration (albeit, a McCain admin would probably feature more flying off the handle and more hurt feelings amongst our sensitive European allies).
Posted by: Norman Rogers | 10 February 2011 at 06:08 PM
In reverse order:
3. Agreed that the paramount consideration is whatever will lead to decent governance for Egypt -- preferably a long term stable democracy.
2. Being a 'public servant' in a dictatorship -- benign, negligent or otherwise -- is a morally complex operation.
1. He owns the actions of his government at least as much as we own the actions of ours.
Posted by: Jane | 10 February 2011 at 11:17 PM
Norman, my reaction of anger and dismay comes from somebody who has been paying attention to the situation for a lot longer than most (pre-Iran Contra and the Gingrich-era Republican Revolution), This feeling of ownership must be akin to a parent who owns their car, but is powerless to stop their children from 'borrowing' it and drunkenly running down pedestrians, while telling us everything is fine.
Posted by: Roy G | 10 February 2011 at 11:19 PM
Fred! Agree with you comment and certainly no legal framework for terrorism or at least no coherent framework.
As to definition of "terrorism" over 100 different ones in US Code and STATE codes.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 11 February 2011 at 06:46 AM
Roy G
Excellent point. I well remember how my Father loathed Kennedy and wondered how the adults surrendered control.
Posted by: Norman Rogers | 11 February 2011 at 12:53 PM
WRC
You asked which countries are de jure or de facto military ruled.
I would nominate Libya, Yemen and Algeria. pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 11 February 2011 at 05:50 PM