• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been released from prison

Nynaeve Meara

Active member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
325
Reaction score
49
Location
Malkier
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LoL.

I bet the Egyptian people are so happy that their lifelong dictator is free. It will certainly be a blast in Tahrir square.
We put him in charge, it is just as much our fault that he controlled that country for 30 yrs.
 

Nynaeve Meara

Active member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
325
Reaction score
49
Location
Malkier
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
define "we" and "put in charge" and "fault".
We(the US) bribed their government(Egypt) when Sadat died with military "aid" to the tune of 200+B/yr to appoint him as President.

He was not supposed to be President when Sadat was assassinated.
 
Last edited:

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,862
Reaction score
7,845
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
LoL.

I bet the Egyptian people are so happy that their lifelong dictator is free. It will certainly be a blast in Tahrir square.
teh democratic west used to love him ..
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We bribed their government when Sadat died with military "aid" to the tune of 200+B/yr to appoint him as President.

He was not supposed to be "president" when Sadat was assassinated.
It would have been indifferent who the president was going to be. If it were an anti-israeli president, he would have started a war and cause his people a lot more suffering. With no anti-israeli president in Egypt, there was a chance for peace. And the 200B/year or whatever was sent as foreign aid. Not the US's fault that there is a lot of corruption at high level. Sure, they knew that the money was being stolen, but what was the alternative? Not give it? cause distabilization to the region? facilitate a new warmongering dictator? Sometimes there is no perfect answer and you deal with what there is. But I'm willing to bet my marbles that if a reformer, a real reformer with democratic agenda would have risen in Egypt with the support of the populace at whatever point in the past, the US would have supported that guy. But the Egyptian population produced no such individual. The proof lies that even when they got rid of Mubarak, look who they elected in his place. An islamist who wanted to become a dictator.
 

Nynaeve Meara

Active member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
325
Reaction score
49
Location
Malkier
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It would have been indifferent who the president was going to be. If it were an anti-israeli president, he would have started a war and cause his people a lot more suffering. With no anti-israeli president in Egypt, there was a chance for peace. And the 200B/year or whatever was sent as foreign aid. Not the US's fault that there is a lot of corruption at high level. Sure, they knew that the money was being stolen, but what was the alternative? Not give it? cause distabilization to the region? facilitate a new warmongering dictator? Sometimes there is no perfect answer and you deal with what there is. But I'm willing to bet my marbles that if a reformer, a real reformer with democratic agenda would have risen in Egypt with the support of the populace at whatever point in the past, the US would have supported that guy. But the Egyptian population produced no such individual. The proof lies that even when they got rid of Mubarak, look who they elected in his place. An islamist who wanted to become a dictator.
I disagree, it is not our place to put people in charge of another country. We wouldn't like it if someone did it to us there is no reason to do the same thing to people we wouldn't want to happen.

There is no evidence that someone would have been worse than Mubarak had the people actually been able to choose, which they were supposed to when Sadat was assassinated.

Instead we interrupted the democratic process we supposedly support to further our own, highly flawed, agenda in a region we refuse to either understand or accept.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I disagree, it is not our place to put people in charge of another country. We wouldn't like it if someone did it to us there is no reason to do the same thing to people we wouldn't want to happen.

There is no evidence that someone would have been worse than Mubarak had the people actually been able to choose, which they were supposed to when Sadat was assassinated.

Instead we interrupted the democratic process we supposedly support to further our own, highly flawed, agenda in a region we refuse to either understand or accept.
But when they had the chance to get rid of him they replaced him with an islamist. And this was after 30 years of relative religious tolerance and secularism. After internet connection and mass media in Egypt. It seems only logical that if they had elections 10, 20, 30 years ago, they would have elected another islamist and another war with israel would have started and more destabilization in the region. And instead of a relatively secular dictator, they would have ended up with an islamist in charge. Until the israelis would have dealt with him, and then another, and another.

I don't know. That's how it seems anyway. I don't support mubarak. I don't think he was good for Egypt. And I don't lament him being thrown out. good on the egyptian people. But they replaced him with someone worse.
 

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,862
Reaction score
7,845
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
But when they had the chance to get rid of him they replaced him with an islamist. And this was after 30 years of relative religious tolerance and secularism. After internet connection and mass media in Egypt. It seems only logical that if they had elections 10, 20, 30 years ago, they would have elected another islamist and another war with israel would have started and more destabilization in the region. And instead of a relatively secular dictator, they would have ended up with an islamist in charge. Until the israelis would have dealt with him, and then another, and another.

I don't know. That's how it seems anyway. I don't support mubarak. I don't think he was good for Egypt. And I don't lament him being thrown out. good on the egyptian people. But they replaced him with someone worse.
who ?
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,817
Reaction score
10,196
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
He was not supposed to be President when Sadat was assassinated.
That's not correct. From CNN:

April 15, 1975 - Sadat names Mubarak vice president of Egypt.

1976 -1981 - Mubarak travels extensively as Sadat's emissary. He also assumes control of the day-to-day operations of the government, which frees Sadat to concentrate on foreign policy.

1978 - Appointed as the Vice Chairman of the National Democratic Party (NDP).


Hosni Mubarak Fast Facts - CNN.com
 

Nynaeve Meara

Active member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
325
Reaction score
49
Location
Malkier
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's not correct. From CNN:

April 15, 1975 - Sadat names Mubarak vice president of Egypt.

1976 -1981 - Mubarak travels extensively as Sadat's emissary. He also assumes control of the day-to-day operations of the government, which frees Sadat to concentrate on foreign policy.

1978 - Appointed as the Vice Chairman of the National Democratic Party (NDP).


Hosni Mubarak Fast Facts - CNN.com
Yes, it is correct, the VP is not supposed to become President after the President dies.

Go read the actual constitution, we bribed the military/government to name Mubarak President.
According to Article 84 of the constitution, the speaker of the People's Assembly is first in the order of succession to become acting President of Egypt if the president dies, becomes incapacitated or resigns. If the People's Assembly is dissolved at the time of a vacancy the President of the Supreme Constitutional Court shall take over the Presidential duties. Within 60 days after a vacancy of the post presidential elections should be held.
The phrase in bold was not done because after being bribed and appointed Mubarak suspended the Constitution, which was unconstitutional but the military wasn't going to complain while receiving 200B+ in "aid"

Egyptian constitution

Their constitution is not like ours, don't assume it is.
 

Nynaeve Meara

Active member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
325
Reaction score
49
Location
Malkier
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But when they had the chance to get rid of him they replaced him with an islamist. And this was after 30 years of relative religious tolerance and secularism. After internet connection and mass media in Egypt. It seems only logical that if they had elections 10, 20, 30 years ago, they would have elected another islamist and another war with israel would have started and more destabilization in the region. And instead of a relatively secular dictator, they would have ended up with an islamist in charge. Until the israelis would have dealt with him, and then another, and another.

I don't know. That's how it seems anyway. I don't support mubarak. I don't think he was good for Egypt. And I don't lament him being thrown out. good on the egyptian people. But they replaced him with someone worse.
That is purely your opinion, we shouldn't have interfered in the election process in the first place back in 1981. I am highly surprised that people on here are this misinformed as to how the government worked over there prior to our interference.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,817
Reaction score
10,196
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yes, it is correct, the VP is not supposed to become President after the President dies.

Go read the actual constitution, we bribed the military/government to name Mubarak President.


The phrase in bold was not done because after being bribed and appointed Mubarak suspended the Constitution, which was unconstitutional but the military wasn't going to complain while receiving 200B+ in "aid"

Egyptian constitution

Their constitution is not like ours, don't assume it is.
Sorry, I did not realize you were referring to technical process. The information I provided showed that Mubarak was Sadat's designated successor. He was not suddenly imposed on Egypt by the U.S. or any other outside state.

In terms of the process, what took place was consistent with Article 84 of Egypt's constitution. What happened was as follows:

1. Immediately following Sadat's assassination on October 6, 1981, the Speaker assumed temporary Presidential responsibilities.
2. Parliament then unanimously nominated VP Mubarak as the next President.
3. An election was held on October 13, a week after Sadat's assassination.

Some news excerpts (dates refer to the date the articles were written):

October 6, 1981: "In the temporary government declared tonight by Acting President Sufi Abu Taleb, Speaker of the Egyptian Parliament..." (Source: "Egypt's Acting Leaders," The New York Times, October 7, 1981)

October 10, 1981: "In the aftermath of the assassination, Government officials moved swiftly to consolidate power under Hosni Mubarak, Vice President since 1975. Parliament nominated him as President without a dissenting vote and quickly scheduled a national referendum Tuesday [October 13] to confirm him." (Source: "Journey's End," The New York Times, October 11, 1981)

October 14, 1981: "The election of Hosni Mubarak as President of Egypt was placed before the voters... The count will be announced today when Parliament convenes to swear in Mr. Mubarak, who will then address the nation." (Source: "News Summary," The New York Times, October 14, 1981)

Mubarak's Address: "...The people have said their word, and I am here to lead the caravan along through this heavy responsibility [as President] and burden on the same path he [Sadat] set, and along the same principles." (Source: "Excerpts From Address in Egypt by Mubarak," The New York Times, October 15, 1981)

In sum, immediately following Sadat's assassination, the Speaker of Parliament took on transitional Presidential duties. Parliament then unanimously nominated Mubarak and scheduled a vote. The vote was held on October 13, one week after the assassination. Mubarak became President in a fully constitutional manner.
 
Last edited:

Higgins86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,797
Reaction score
7,877
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is purely your opinion, we shouldn't have interfered in the election process in the first place back in 1981. I am highly surprised that people on here are this misinformed as to how the government worked over there prior to our interference.
Educate us then...

Rainman is spot on in terms of Mubarak bring a progressive when it came to social issues and religious tolerance, as for the West why would we oppose him? The guy brought peace and stability to the region and did whatever we told him to plus he actually worked with Israel. Yes Mubarak was many things but how is Egypt doing now? How is that multi billion tourist industry coping? Don't be surprised to see him put back in power by the people themselves.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,877
Reaction score
31,082
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Id be willing to bet money that more than a few Egyptians would be glad to have him back.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,627
Reaction score
20,383
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If Obama had a father who didn't desert him, he'd look just like Hosni Mubarak.
 

ItAin'tFree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Messages
1,293
Reaction score
338
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wonder if Obama was smart enough to send him a couple of packs of smokes while he was in the slammer? Bad enough he turned his back on an American friend and jumped on that silly Arab Spring nonsense. Now what? Obama has managed to get everybody in Egypt to hate us. That took a lot of work.
 

Nynaeve Meara

Active member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
325
Reaction score
49
Location
Malkier
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Educate us then...

Rainman is spot on in terms of Mubarak bring a progressive when it came to social issues and religious tolerance, as for the West why would we oppose him? The guy brought peace and stability to the region and did whatever we told him to plus he actually worked with Israel. Yes Mubarak was many things but how is Egypt doing now? How is that multi billion tourist industry coping? Don't be surprised to see him put back in power by the people themselves.
I already did up above, Parliament is not allowed to nominate a President or give someone that spot it has to be done via election which wasn't held until after he was already President.

How would you feel if Obama was appointed President by Congress and then after appointed an election was held as a "informal" processes as we already had a President. I'd be pretty upset, I shouldn't be surprised but people who supposedly stand for freedom don't really mean it.

Yes, it is correct, the VP is not supposed to become President after the President dies.

Go read the actual constitution, we bribed the military/government to name Mubarak President.


The phrase in bold was not done because after being bribed and appointed Mubarak suspended the Constitution, which was unconstitutional but the military wasn't going to complain while receiving 200B+ in "aid"

Egyptian constitution

Their constitution is not like ours, don't assume it is.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,817
Reaction score
10,196
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I already did up above, Parliament is not allowed to nominate a President or give someone that spot it has to be done via election which wasn't held until after he was already President.
That’s not correct.

In Message #16 in this thread, you objected with Hosni Mubarak’s becoming President on grounds that the Parliament speaker should have become acting President and that an election should have been held within 60 days after the vacancy in the office of President occurred.

In Message #18, I provided excerpts from news stories indicating that the constitutional requirements were fulfilled:

• The Speaker of Parliament (Sufi Abu Taleb) assumed temporary responsibilities as President on October 6, 1981 (the day President Sadat was assassinated).
• Hosni Mubarak was elected President on October 13, just 7 days later (well within the 60-day requirement).

Article 84 of the 1971 Constitution, which was in place at the time states:

In case vacancy of the Presidential office or the permanent disability of the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the People’s Assembly shall temporarily assume the Presidency; and, if at that time, the People’s Assembly is already dissolved, the President of the Supreme Constitutional Court shall take over the Presidency, provided, however, that neither shall nominate himself for the Presidency, subject to abidance by the ban stipulated in paragraph 2 of Article 82.

The People’s Assembly shall then proclaim the vacancy of the office of President. The President of the Republic shall be chosen within a maximum period of sixty days from the day the Presidential office becomes vacant.


State Information Services Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 1971

Let’s take a closer look:

In case vacancy of the Presidential office or the permanent disability of the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the People’s Assembly shall temporarily assume the Presidency…

Fulfilled. Speaker Sufi Abu Taleb temporarily assumed the Presidency on October 6.

and, if at that time, the People’s Assembly is already dissolved, the President of the Supreme Constitutional Court shall take over the Presidency…

Not applicable. Parliament had not been dissolved at the time the vacancy occurred.

… neither shall nominate himself for the Presidency…

Fulfilled. Speaker Sufi Abu Taleb did not seek the Presidency. Notice also the language about nominating authority. That authority is limited only as it relates to the Speaker’s seeking the Presidency. Nothing in that Article or elsewhere states that Parliament is barred from nominating the President.

The People’s Assembly shall then proclaim the vacancy of the office of President…

Fulfilled. The vacancy was declared on October 6 when the Speaker temporarily assumed the responsibilities.

The President of the Republic shall be chosen within a maximum period of sixty days from the day the Presidential office becomes vacant.

Fulfilled. The election was held on October 13, seven days after the vacancy had occurred.

Nothing in Article 84 or elsewhere in the constitution prohibits Parliament’s nomination of a President. The Constitution does prohibit certain things and does so expressly (prohibition on the Speaker’s seeking the Presidency). Indeed, Article 84 solely restricts the Speaker’s being nominated, meaning that Parliament has nominating authority that is limited only with regard to the Speaker. Given Mubarak’s role of Vice President and his increasing role as emissary for President Sadat in that capacity, he was the logical choice. His becoming President fully met the constitutional requirements set forth in Article 84.
 
Top Bottom