Comments on: General Rushdi el-Qamari اللواء رشدي القمري

By: Bahaa

Bahaa — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:59:11 +0000

Sherif, ma2darsh afty fel qanun el masry. I understand that shutting networks down is not a crime in itself. However, I imagine it would be if there is a proximate causal relation between it and the actual consequence that defines some crimes. Ya3ny, if the crime is “an act causing physical injury” or “causing death” masalan, and we can prove that shutting down networks contributed to the inability to provide medical care or to get help and therefore intensified some injuries and led to physical injury or death (as really happened), then I can’t see why it’s not a crime. The original act in question doesn’t have to be illegal for the crime to exist. Here’s a link to the arguments made by ANHRI (I can’t say how convincing it is since it refers often to “بغير وجه حق” which I guess is your point, that they had the legal right).

From an international law perspective, there is clearly a ton of violations of so many different rights. The only issue is whether only the state is accountable or whether you can attribute culpability to the corporations as well.

By: Sherif ElSaadani

Sherif ElSaadani — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:45:02 +0000

Shutting down the internet and mobile phone networks is not a crime. What will you charge the authorities with? Legally the only crime you can file is a claim for compensation for the abuse of power, also known as “ta3assof fy este3maal el7aq”, which is basically right of the regulatory authority to issue rules and decisions shall not be affected by anything else, but the public interest, in perusing its policies.

By: Bahaa

Bahaa — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:13:30 +0000

Perfectionatic… legal standards are unclear, but the network operators are probably liable. Complicity doesn’t have to relate to the killings. It can be easily connected to the prevention of the right to receive information, which is a separate right in ICCPR (and it is also a direct violation of free expression, since the right encompasses the means used to deliver speech). But more importantly, it can be considered a contributory factor (it has a causal connection) to the unavailability of medical care to the demonstrators and ultimately the death of many. There is 1) clear knowledge of the likely consequences that would result from the act of cutting off the networks, and 2) there is a clear causal connection between the act and the crimes against the protesters. That’s in general all what you need. Of course, all of the jurisprudence is from the US Alien Claims Tort Act, since there is no internationally recognized legal obligation on corporations to respect human rights anyway. As far as I know, ANHRI is looking into suing the wireless operators in Egyptian courts, relying mostly on Egyptian Law from what I understand.

By: Mabrouk

Mabrouk — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:52:18 +0000

Hossam ya Arabawy. There are still some employees detained in mo3takalat for the 3 operators after and before Mo7akamat 3askareya. The iron fist was complete. You don’t think those operators are not controlled enough to pull the plug at any time and anyway they like at any of their service.

By: hassan

hassan — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:05:33 +0000

Perfectionatic and @Eman_Hashim actually even if the contract had a clause that says that they have to hand over the network to government control if asked or in situations that are deemed “security situations” (by decree of the government no doubt!!); those same contracts will all have a “force majeurre” clauses that allow either party to cancel the contract in the event of a force majeurre. And I am quite sure that in the definition of force najeurre it would include revolutions, and / or massive unrest. So the only question is would the clauses that allow the security services / government to take over the networks survive and / or still be binding even in the event of a force majeurre. If not than the telephone companies could have declared force majeurre and cancelled the contract , and than they wouldn’t have had to shut the networks down. It would only than be in the government’s hands in the event they had critical infrastructure they could shut down that was in their control

By: سارة

سارة — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:32:53 +0000

ياريت ترجمة عربي للمقالات ده عشان نقدر ننشر بشكل أوسع

By: مهـــا

مهـــا — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:58:12 +0000

بالعربى لو سمحتم !!!!! النشر بالعربى !

By: Perfectionatic

Perfectionatic — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:33:18 +0000

@Eman_Hashim We could sue them only if we could show that they where complicit in that crime i.e. they knew we were being shot at and had the power to turn on the network, but they decided to just sit on their hands.
If that is the case, then they have violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and we could even take them to an international court of justice. See this link for a legal background:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080616131746/http://198.170.85.29/Clapham-Jerbi-paper.htm

My understanding from insider sources, is that they had no control over their networks.

In any case this issue must be investigated and all the culprits exposed.

By: torrentoff

torrentoff — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:10:26 +0000

I’d like to add that the Mobinil mobile service was down in Tahrir square on Jan 25th at night.

By: Ibrahim Awwad

Ibrahim Awwad — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:40:38 +0000

Hi 3arabawy, it will be more beneficially if you publish them in Arabic, this should be directed to us in Egypt am I correct? we aren’t talking to foreigners