Egypt police detain, beat, sexually assault US-based journalist Mona Eltahawy; other journalists also targeted


33 Responses to “Egypt police detain, beat, sexually assault US-based journalist Mona Eltahawy; other journalists also targeted”

  1. Liz Henry says:

    I’m so glad she’s out!  And thinking of all the people still detained and the ones in Tahrir…

  2. Mordicai says:

    See, THIS is when I get hawkish.  “Oh, hey, we were content to remain non-interventionist until you fucked with an American citizen.  Deliver these dude’s to justice or we’ll take your lack of action as sufficient evidence that you are a fundamentally unjust & hostile coup & we’ll have to depose you.  Do not fuck with American citizens.”

    • “Do not fuck with American citizens.”  Unless you’re an American citizen of course, then it’s fine.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      See, THIS is when I get hawkish.

      If you lose your principles under duress, you never had any to start with.

      • tré says:

        Seems to me hir principles may include “the US has a responsibility to its own citizens above all else.”

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          As much as I abhor what happened to her (and many others), talking about deposing the Egyptian government is a bad idea. I’m opposed to US military intervention!!! Except when I’m really pissed off about something!!!

          You don’t really find out what your real principles are until you’re furious and want revenge.

          • You don’t really find out what your real principles are until you’re furious and want revenge.

            Most people don’t run on principles, nor should they. Results are what matter. The question is what result you’re interested in (personally, I don’t have much interest in this, but “nobody gets beaten up or sexually assaulted by Egyptian cops, and ESPECIALLY not Americans” seems reasonable), and what action will most effectively lead to that result.

      • Mordicai says:

        …my principals don’t exclude the use of force to vouchsafe American citizens?

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          So you support the war in Afghanistan? And the war in Iraq? And the one that we’re pondering in Iran? How many countries have detained or abused US citizens without reasonable cause? Because that principle would require us to invade dozens of countries. And of course, since we routinely abuse people who are coming from other countries to the US, we would be subject to annihilation by the rest of the world.

          So, yeah, that would be a pretty horrible principle.

          • Mordicai says:

            Bringing up a laundry list of unpopular wars– or what, military actions, whatever– sort of strains credibility. No? We didn’t go to Iraq because they sexually assaulted US citizens, we went there– well, on the face of it because of false information about massive military weapons, & the invocation of the preventive war policy. & Afghanistan was– is– an attempt to root our Al Qaeda– which is a big policy difference I have with the Bush wars as well, holding nations fully responsible for criminal elements within them. That, &, you know, I’ve got a bone to pick with the modern use of bombs…which are weapons to go along with “total war” & certainly no way to help a nation out…

            So yeah, I guess what I’m saying is that those aren’t good parallels at all? I’d point at the North Korean kidnapping of journalists as a better example. Diplomacy won the day & hooray for Bill Clinton & all that jazz, but these are the official state forces acting in their official capacity against US citizens. So yeah. It gets my hackles up.

            & for the record, yeah, I think there should be condemnation for US authorities engaging in criminal practices against foreign citizens, too. Is that crazy? That I’d expect my government not to assault & rape people?

          • Daniel says:

            Is that crazy? That I’d expect my government not to assault & rape people?

            Yes, if you’re beating the war drum or even just idly tapping it then that is crazy.  Rape is part of war and it always has been.  If you don’t want American soldiers to sexually assault or rape anyone then oppose war.  It really is that simple.

  3. Halloween_Jack says:

    Sing it with me: Meet the new boss…

  4. waksawak says:

    I am so glad she is out.  “Just you fuckers wait” is my new favorite motto.

  5. EH says:

    Sexual assault is one of the most ancient warfighting techniques.

    • L_Mariachi says:

      I’m afraid you are the one who is confused. Maybe it is an obvious risk, but “should expect to get beaten” is not the same as “deserve to get beaten.”  

      Furthermore, you have an antonymic definition of “coward” if it includes people who voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way for a greater cause.

    • Dr_Wadd says:

      By definition, you aren’t coming down on the side of the Egyptians, you’re coming down with the Egyptian authorities, there’s a big difference there. Egyptian citizens are subjected to the same abhorent treatment, if I were a betting man I would wager that the average citizen is equally appalled whether this happens to someone with full Egyptian citizenship or someone who wields dual-citizenship.

      I’m curious as to what your definition of a “hipster journalist” is? Leaving aside the implicit criticism in your turn of phrase, a quick check of Wikipedia (ok, not necessarily always the most authorative source) shows that Eltahawy was a correspondent for Reuters for many years, and has written for the Washington Post, New York Times, and International Herald Tribune. That would hardly seem to fulfil any definition of “hipster journalist”, at least how I would see that term being applied.

      I’m also curious as to how far you would extend your arguments. For example, would you argue that a reporter in a war zone deserves to be shot or injured were that to happen. The BBC correspondent Martin Bell was injured by shrapnel while working in Bosnia. He went in to a war zone knowing it was dangerous, but there’s no way you could argue that he deserved that injury, and I see absolutely no difference in this instance.

        • EH says:

          NYT, IHT, WaPo and Reuters all have the same owner?

        • Dr_Wadd says:

          You’re clouding the issue with spurious arguments. Eltahawy as individual is not responsible for propping up the Egyptian regime, the vast majority of Americans are not responsible for propping up the Egyptian regime. She, as an individual, should not be punished for the collective responsibility of the American government. There are aspects of the USA that I deeply dislike (and for balance, there are aspects of the UK that I deeply dislike too), but that does not cause me to feel an malice towards individual citizens, with a few exceptions like Bush Jr, Cheney and the gang.

          I was not aware that those publications all have the same owner, although my admittedly brief research doesn’t actually support that assertion in its entirety. But again, that’s clouding the issue, and has at its heart media plurality and ownership. What, in your opinion, is a publication that is not to be considered proganda? I ask that question quite genuinely, as I appreciate that different people have varying opinions regarding different news sources. For example, I would consider the BBC to be a reliable source, The Daily Mail rather less so, so I’d like to know what sources you hold in high regard.

          The UK did sell arms and munitions to the Yugoslavian regime, it may not have been aid as such, but we certainly provided the authorities with means to assist in the atrocities committed there.

  6. daniel lake says:

    Where is the Punisher when you need him?

  7. riorico says:

    Now is maybe the time to cut USA financial ‘aid’ to Egypt.

  8. Bartacus says:

    May she persevere until every one of those Egyptian Police cowards is swinging from his neck.

  9. Bob N Johnson says:

    Ant, you are so right, this is the real reason for laws among civilized, rational peoples. Under duress, our moral character is revealed.

    Dysfunctional people are going to do whatever they desire, without regard for the law. The law’s real purpose, or what the law’s real purpose should be, is to act as a deterrent to those who are still in control of their faculties, but are debating just what their response should be to adverse events.

    I tend to view all those who break the simple law of *leave others the fuck alone*, as emotionally disabled. In other words I don’t buy the excuse, “I was drunk.”

    The law used in any other way is tyranny, plain and simple.

  10. Richard Lord says:

     Journalists arrested by Bloomberg’s militarily junta were held longer I believe.

  11. Genre Slur says:

    I cannot read Tara’s comments. I am assuming they were removed…

  12. Muser says:

    Blind adherence to a principle is the same as “zero-tolerance” laws.   Principles are very important–that’s why we call them principles.  But principles also come into conflict with each other.  As Goedel showed, there is no completely self-consistent set of principles possible.  It is perfectly reasonable and desirable to evaluate circumstances on a case by case basis, to prioritize principles and to come to a reasonable compromise among them.  I would expect nothing less from a thoughtful person.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      You utterly fail to understand the concept of what a principle is. It is something that can be applied to every situation. You evaluate situations on a case by case basis by applying your fundamental principles to them.

  13. helleman says:

    Principles are what seperate us from the lower brain folks who still rely on their reptillian brains.   Emotions & brain chemicals that trigger fight or flight reations need to be donminated for good decision making by the rational brain.    Without principles, emtions will always win.   [9/11 response, etc]   Working on developing what your principles are (under what situations is it morally correct for me to kill, etc) will help guide you if and when the siutation ever occurs.   That’s why I like reading stories about non-voiolent responses to situations, so I can learn and be prepared.   Otherwise, kill the fuckers is usually our emotive response to every threat situation, which, in the endgame, leaves a hell of a lot more bodies compared to more rational alternatives.

Leave a Reply