Al-Ahram Weekly | Egypt | Complicated tales

In an exclusive interview, Major-General Ahmed Omar, the assistant to the interior minister, speaks to Jailan Halawi about extraditing Islamists, the emergency law, police behaviour during elections and the relationship between the security apparatus and the Muslim Brotherhood

Egypt's security apparatus has always been subject to fiery criticism, whether by non-governmental organisations or human rights watchdogs who constantly accuse it of violating prisoners' rights and suppressing freedoms of expression and thought. A report issued last year by the Washington-based Human Rights Watch group, for instance, openly accused Egypt of being a hotbed of "rendition" and torture. The police also received its share of criticism in 2005; it was a year of terror attacks that critics said authorities were not prepared for, and elections that monitors said the Interior Ministry did not properly protect. Throughout this firestorm, the ministry continued to adopt its "no comment" policy. This week, however, Al-Ahram Weekly managed to obtain a three-hour interview with the assistant to the interior minister, who answered questions on the most pressing security-related issues both domestically and internationally.

How do you respond to Human Rights Watch (HRW) claims about a secret CIA agreement whereby Egypt detains and/or questions Islamist militants on the US agency's behalf, and that after 9/11 Egypt has also been involved in the so- called "rendition" of Islamist militants who were either tortured during interrogations, or whose whereabouts remain unknown?

First, I would like to clarify that laws of international cooperation in combating terrorism govern the extradition issue, a fact we can neither hide nor mislead people about. Extradition is never haphazard; it is regulated by agreements and standards of security cooperation among nations. However, when issues are exaggerated and facts twisted without evidence, then these are mere claims. When did Egypt become a fortress of torture, let alone on behalf of other countries? The cases mentioned in the report -- all of which were governed by legitimate measures -- include inaccurate as well as exaggerated information; it is ridiculous to say that Egypt has become a hotbed for torture.

But several of these cases have been very high- profile, including that of Egyptian-Australian Mahmoud Habib El-Masry, and mosque preacher Hassan Mustafa Nasr, who was allegedly kidnapped by the CIA from Milano, Italy, and brought to Egypt. With regards to the latter case, a crisis has even emerged between Italy and the US involving the Italian government's investigation into the matter...

Egyptian-Australian Mamdouh Habib El-Masry came to Egypt for a limited time and left, and the Australian Embassy in Egypt has full details of his arrival and departure. As for mosque preacher Hassan Mustafa Nasr, he's been detained for security reasons. During interrogation at the state security prosecution, he said that he was sick of having been on the run for years, and that he came to Egypt on his own initiative. He's one of the key active leaders of the clandestine Jihad group who had been at large for a long time.

Why are the police always accused -- whether by detainees, lawyers and human rights organisations -- of torture?

These are known tricks to evade and ruin legal procedures. Unfortunately, some organisations receive such claims without sufficient analysis. We have confronted HRW before, and told them that we fully cooperate with all non-governmental organisations and have nothing to hide. We expressed our willingness to discuss any cases, once they provide us with facts and evidence. But we have nothing to offer when the organisation adopts a case based on mere claims. I would like to clarify that the issue includes attempts by some bodies to hinder efforts made as part of international cooperation in combating terrorism. Countries like France, England, the US, Italy and others are tightening their laws and seeking international cooperation to rein in the phenomena whereby terrorist elements seek asylum under the pretext of persecution, using these countries as a safe haven for conducting their activities. Any attempt to obstruct these efforts won't work, since the international community is aware of the grave dangers the world faces from the terrorism threat.

The number and status of detainees remain vague, whether we're talking about those arrested in the aftermath of the Taba and Sharm El-Sheikh bombings, or the so-called historic leaders of the Jihad and Gamaa Islamiya groups who have served their sentences, but are still being held for security reasons. Is there a plan to review their status?

I would like to clarify some broad lines: detention takes place according to liberties granted by the emergency law, which also grants the detainee the right to contest before the court. While many wrongly believe that detention is an absolute licence with no restrictions, let me explain that detention is an exceptional measure aimed at confronting an exceptional phenomenon of great danger. Everybody is aware of the hardships Egypt went through in its war on terror, and how much the country has suffered. It was normal for authorities to issue such an exceptional measure, especially when this is done under the judiciary's supervision, and grants the detainee the right to complain through his lawyer. Detention is not done haphazardly. As for certain organisations' claims concerning the number of detainees, I say their numbers are not real. We have said before that the number of detainees varies all the time, and is thus difficult to determine. The number can increase or decrease by a hundred as we speak; there are always people going in and out of detention. Anyone who claims that the emergency law was used in non-terrorism-related cases needs to provide evidence. Terrorists are not prisoners of thought, and we did not make up the problem: Egypt has seen hundreds of killings, the assassination of its president, and attempts to undermine the regime. Those who commit such crimes cannot be left loose. Egypt tightening its laws in response to all this is neither a novelty, nor is it against the norm. These days, as I mentioned earlier, countries like the US, Italy, Britain and France are issuing similar laws to curb such phenomena. And in any case, according to the president's recommendations, the emergency law, or rather the state of emergency, will be abolished and replaced by an anti-terrorism law that is currently in the making.

The president has the absolute right to declare a state of emergency when the country is facing constant danger that threatens its stability and security. An anti- terrorism law means that the judiciary will formulate certain measures that empower the state in its confrontation with terrorism.

The broad line is to provide certain privileges that help combat terrorism, with its highly complicated criminal nature, in accordance with our laws and constitution, as well as international norms. The Interior Ministry plays an active role in drafting such laws, since it is the closest to, and most experienced in, handling such phenomena. Nevertheless, the work will be done in cooperation and consultation with various ministries.

It is too early to tell; the issue is still subject to thorough research and discussions.

There is a bit of a mix up here. There could be a detainee who, based on legal procedures, has obtained a mandatory release. We may still keep him under surveillance, and if he indulges in deviant activities once again, we take procedures against him.

What about detainees who have served their sentences, like Tareq El-Zomor, but are still in prison?

Tareq El-Zomor has served a sentence, and says he should be released. He has not been released because we see that there are other sentences that he has not served. We contested his release order, and are still waiting for the administrative court to rule; we will comply with whatever the court decides.

And the hundreds of detainees arrested in connection with the Taba and Sharm El-Sheikh bombings that human rights organisations claim are still in jail?

I'm glad they [human rights organisations] brought the number down from thousands to hundreds; before, they were saying that there were between 4,000-5,000. We told them that the detention procedures were all legal; when they insisted that the number was in the thousands, we asked them to provide us with their names, because numbers alone are not enough proof. At the peak of the investigation procedures and pursuit of the culprits, there were no more than 200 detainees; this number went down as the case was referred to court. The continued detention of some of these suspects has to do with the fact that there were other elements involved in the case, not just those that executed the operation. We have to conduct a thorough investigation, and we don't leave any files unattended. There were incidents of car theft and arms trafficking, along with other factors involved in the case. Although we caught the main culprits, there are still other aspects that we are taking care of.

The culprits are just a small part of the Bedouin community, but because of Sinai's geography, the repercussions were grave. Regardless, no one has ever blamed the residents of north or south Sinai, or mistreated them. Our target was [only] those elements that executed the attacks. They were based in Gabal Al-Halal, 20km from Al-Arish. There was no harm done, but there was also no room for laxity. The security procedures following the attacks might have restrained some Bedouin activities or movement, but then things went back to normal. There weren't any haphazard measures taken against anyone, or random detentions, as they claim. The prosecution is questioning all the suspects.

Some reports link the Taba and Sharm El-Sheikh culprits to elements from the Palestinian resistance. Is there truth in that?

It is not true at all. That sort of speculation was sparked by the fact that the key suspect in the Taba operation was Palestinian, although he was a resident of Al-Arish. As far as the investigation is concerned, there weren't any expatriate or foreign elements involved in, or linked to, the planning or execution of these attacks. The Palestinian element who died during the Taba operation was, along with his family, a longtime resident who neither sneaked through the borders, nor was on a short trip.

Israel has warned its citizens to avoid Sinai, citing threats that they might be kidnapped there by elements affiliated to the Palestinian resistance. Is there really a serious threat in this regard, and are there any special plans in place to deal with it?

First of all, many countries issue warnings to their citizens; it is up to each country to estimate the amount of danger in different parts of the world, which could in certain cases be exaggerated as an extra precautionary measure so that they can steer clear of responsibility. When you look, however, at the number of high-profile figures who chose Sharm El-Sheikh as a venue for their Christmas and New Year's holidays, such claims tend to prove baseless and untrue. Those who issued such warnings did not express their concerns to us, seek our help, or provide any information in that regard. The interior minister made it clear that we fully cooperate with all countries; that when a warning is issued, and presented to us with specific information, we embrace it, and take the necessary measures. We have not, however, received anything, and we don't have any information about raising the security alert in Sinai or Sharm El-Sheikh; the best proof of that is that Israeli tourists have not stopped visiting the peninsula.

Is it true that the Egyptian Embassy in Denmark issued a warning about a possible attack by elements affiliated to the Al-Qaeda network on ships passing through the Suez Canal?

Security needs to be on the alert for all possibilities, with or without a warning. Securing the Suez Canal takes place at the highest levels of cooperation between various security bodies. These speculations were sparked by attacks carried out on similar destinations in the region, whether in Yemen or the recent unfortunate attacks in Jordan that Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for. Basically, vital utilities are always seen as a possible target, and so plans for their security are always automatically in place, with or without specific information.

No. And if there were, they would have been announced. This label needs to be clarified. Why? Al-Qaeda is based on a coalition of factions and groups that were in Afghanistan, and then merged with the Al-Qaeda organisation. Thus, it is not unusual for groups affiliated to an old or new organisation to link their work to Al-Qaeda, for it has become an ideology. For that reason, we cannot call Al-Qaeda an organisation that's hierarchical or cluster-based. And that has become the source of terrorism danger at this stage.

Why, despite the ministry's efforts at curbing terrorism, did we still see attacks like the ones that took place last year in Tahrir Square and Al-Azhar?

There is a number of reasons. There are the splinter groups returning home from areas of conflict, the ongoing turbulence in the region -- things like the Palestinian issue, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the changes, developments, transformations, tensions and violence they entail. Issues related to clashes of civilisations, and a war on Islam, have also played a part. All these elements provoked young people's anger; combined with a misunderstanding of religion and the essence of jihad, they have lead, in the end, to a state of delusion that has pushed [some people] towards sporadic attacks. In the Al-Azhar case, a group of friends and relatives living in the same building decided to take a stance and declare jihad. They represent a random group that popped up with no form or structure, making it very difficult to place it under surveillance, unlike stronger organisations that are in constant contact, are easier to trace and can be kept under scrutiny. These kinds of random groups are security's toughest challenge. Unfortunately, putting together an explosive device is no longer a problem. Egypt is currently conducting talks on an international level to incriminate and ban the dissemination of information on the Internet that facilitates or explains the manufacturing of explosives. The role played by government institutions in spreading awareness among youth, as a way of preventing them from being brainwashed by deviant ideologies and extremism, is also worth noting.

Are there any developments related to Egypt's repeated requests to extradite wanted Islamist militants?

When we present an official request asking for the extradition of a wanted suspect, the concerned state asks for the case file and details of the charges levelled. They then analyse them, and decide whether to hand him over or not. Some militants, fed up after being on the run for years, decide to hand themselves in, serve their sentences, and then lead a stable life afterwards. Some host countries deny our requests, granting the militants political asylum, while others ask Egypt to provide additional guarantees assuring there will be no violation of the suspect's human rights. We already provide guarantees, in accordance with our laws, that safeguard these rights, and nothing can be imposed on us. In such cases, the state refrains from deporting the suspect, but we continue requesting his extradition.

The relationship between the Interior Ministry and the Muslim Brotherhood remains ambiguous. Sometimes they are allowed to meet, protest and even contest elections; at other times, they become targets of the ministry's heavy-handed clampdown. What governs the relationship?

The law and the constitution govern the relationship between security bodies and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood contested elections as independents, not as members of the banned group, and there are no restrictions on independents. But for that to be interpreted as their having become a fait accompli is far-fetched. As security people, we deal with the Brotherhood whenever they violate the law, which says the Brotherhood is a clandestine group whose activities are banned.

We should not mix matters, or mislead public opinion. Saying that the Brotherhood has become a fait accompli, and that no one can come near them even though they are still a banned group, is an embodiment of political thuggery. The Brotherhood, meanwhile, ought to stop their unfounded accusations and allegations against security, since they are fully aware that the measures taken against their banned cadres are bound by the law.

The law regulates forms of assembly. When I talk about an underground organisational activity, it has to include the elements of a crime. That does not apply to a group of them hanging out together; we don't arrest them when they hang out in syndicates, for example. But we cannot overlook it when they take action in violation of the law; in those cases, we arrest them and then let the court decide whether they are guilty or innocent.

Security bodies were criticised during the parliamentary elections for being passive in the first round, and then for committing violations during subsequent rounds. NGOs and even some judges filed complaints in this regard with the prosecutor-general. What is your comment?

Only some judges complained, while others denounced their stance; the matter is currently under investigation. What happened during elections was not unusual, due to the intensity of the competition, and the developments that took place in the overall political arena, combined -- especially in southern rural areas -- with the close ties between families and clans. The interior minister announced that although we would remain impartial, we would also deal with any attempt to threaten or impede the electoral process. Like in any race, the first round began with a testing of the waters; in subsequent rounds, competitors were anxious to achieve their targets, and in doing so, they might have over- reacted. We are currently investigating cases of thuggery committed by all competing parties in the second round. Most of our interference was to disperse troublesome crowds hindering the electoral process.

These were individual cases and not a general policy. Before the election began, the interior minister referred two officers to a disciplinary court for taking part in their relative's electoral campaign. When violations are reported, they are taken to court, whose rulings we fully respect.