Egyptian Court Acquits Muslim Who Beheaded Christian
An Egyptian court in the southern city of Assuit acquitted this week four Muslims accused of killing 61-year-old Farouk Attallah on October 19, 2009. In broad daylight and in full view of witnesses, the killers fired 31 bullets to his head before beheading him, in the busy village market place of Attaleen, near Dairout, 313 kilometers south of Cairo. The dead body was then dragged in the street, accompanied by shouts of victory. Free Copts website published a video of the disfigured body (warning, violent graphic content: video).
The judge presiding over the court on February 22, said that he was not satisfied that the testimony of the witnesses established that the imprisoned men were the killers. After the acquittal of Mohamad, Ashraf, Osama and Ahmad Hassouna, there was jubilation in the court room, with shouts of 'Allah is Great' and congratulations from all Muslims, including members of the state security forces who were present.
Christians were enraged over the acquittal, since similar cases would result in life imprisonment or execution for a Copt if the victim was a Muslim.
The verdict came as another wake-up call to many Copts, according to Peter Sarwat, the plaintiff's attorney. "It sends a clear message that Coptic blood is extremely cheap." he told Mariam Ragy of Katiba Tibia Coptic site. "This acquittal will make permanent the present culture of impunity enjoyed by Muslim aggressors against Copts.".
Sarwat said the ruling was inadequate, as it acquitted the accused but did not say who the perpetrators are. "If these men did not kill, so who killed? The ruling should have referred the case to the general prosecution to present the perpetrators."
The Court based its ruling on quasi non existent proof, as well as the absence of "positive evidence" testimony versus the presence of "negative evidence" testimony. "The judge refused to take into consideration the testimonies of the dead man's daughter who said she only saw one killer and not four, as well as the testimony of the Muslim man who was wounded in the shootings," said Sarwat. According to media reports, most people who witnessed the shootings in the market place refused to come forward for fear of vengeance from the assailants' family. There were false witnesses who confirmed that the killers were present at work.
"It is not enough to get a conviction based only on police reports which are full of legal loopholes and weak prosecution investigations," said Sarwat. Legal observers have always claimed that the police purposely deliver to prosecution reports full of inadequacies and loopholes, thereby getting from the courts acquittals for Muslims.
What prompted the killing of Farouk Attallah was an alleged illicit sexual relationship between his son Romany and a local Muslim girl, Hagger Hassouna. A rumor that intimate photos of Hagger together with her lover Romany were circulating on cell phones in Dairout lead four members of the Hassona family to kill Romany's father, after failing to locate his son, who had fled.
Besides the killing of Farouk Attallah, the arrest of the Hassouna perpetrators sparked on October 24, 2009, Muslim riots and collective punishment against all Copts in Dairout. Christian-owned shops, pharmacies, and homes were looted and burned (AINA 10-27-2009).
Although several hundreds Muslims participated in those riots, the police only detained 19, and these were acquitted on December 13, 2009 because of the lack of eyewitnesses and conflicting statements between the accused and the victims.
The majority of Copts believe the reason for the acquittal of Muslims is that although Egypt claims to be a secular state, in reality it applies the Sharia law which dictates .that a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim must not be killed, because it is not reasonable to equate a Muslim with a "polytheist" (a Christian).
Commenting on the acquittal, Dr. Naguib Gobraeel, President of the Egyptian Union of Human Rights, said: "What is the solution? The same happened with regards to Al-Kosheh Massacre [21 Copts were slaughtered in 2000 and not one Muslim was indicted], the attack on the Copts in Alexandria were blamed on a mentally unstable person; even the assailant who beheaded Abdo Goerge Younan in Menoufiah is now in a mental hospital [AINA 9-21-2009]. Heavenly Justice is our last resourt." He stated that he will appeal this week's verdict.
The victim's family was greatly shocked and saddened by the acquittal. "In spite of the blood of their slain family head filling the street, the Muslim killers got away literally with murder,"
Sarwat said "It just shows how cheap Coptic blood can be." Sarwat asserted that he will appeal the ruling. "We cannot remain silent over this verdict as it has very serious implications for all Copts in Egypt." He added: "It is not safe for Copts now, as any Muslims who wants to get rid of a Copt, would kill him, knowing well that in the end he will be acquitted'
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.