The CIA’s Role in Egypt’s Regime Change? Who Is Omar Suleiman?


New Yorker online

One of the “new” names being mentioned as a possible alternative to President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Omar Suleiman, is actually not so new to anyone who has followed the American policy of renditions for terror suspects. After dissolving his cabinet yesterday, Mubarak appointed Suleiman vice-president, and according to many commentators he is poised to be a potential successor, and an alternative to Mubarak’s son and intended heir until now, Gamal Mubarak. Suleiman is a well-known quantity in Washington. Suave, sophisticated, and fluent in English, he has served for years as the main conduit between the United States and Mubarak. While he has a reputation for loyalty and effectiveness, he also carries some controversial baggage from the standpoint of those looking for a clean slate on human rights. As I described in my book “The Dark Side,” since 1993 Suleiman has headed the feared Egyptian general intelligence service. In that capacity, he was the C.I.A.’s point man in Egypt for renditions—the covert program in which the C.I.A. snatched terror suspects from around the world and returned them to Egypt and elsewhere for interrogation, often under brutal circumstances.

As laid out in greater detail by Stephen Grey, in his book “Ghost Plane,” beginning in the nineteen-nineties, Suleiman negotiated directly with top Agency officials. Every rendition was greenlighted at the highest levels of both the U.S. and Egyptian intelligence agencies. Edward S. Walker, Jr., a former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, described Suleiman as “very bright, very realistic,” adding that he was cognizant that there was a downside to “some of the negative things that the Egyptians engaged in, of torture and so on. But he was not squeamish, by the way.”

Technically, U.S. law required the C.I.A. to seek “assurances” from Egypt that rendered suspects wouldn’t face torture. But under Suleiman’s reign at the intelligence service, such assurances were considered close to worthless. As Michael Scheuer, a former C.I.A. officer who helped set up the practice of rendition, later testified before Congress, even if such “assurances” were written in indelible ink, “they weren’t worth a bucket of warm spit.”

Add To The Conversation Using Facebook Comments

2 Responses

  1. wiseman says:

    Omar Suleiman cannot satisfy the Egyptian people’s demand for positive change. Mr. Suleiman is a narcissistic con man that loves to torture and deceive those groups that are against his secret society’s agenda. In addition, if in power, Mr. Suleiman will cause the Egyptian people to revolt because power and money mean more to him than people. This decision by President Mubarak will actually reduce UK, US and Israeli influence in Egypt and ultimately increase the will of the Egyptian people to demand change in their government. President Mubarak wanting to put his son Gamal in power gives the appearance that Gamal will be another King and not a President. In reality, an end to 30 years of martial law, presidential terms being limited to 12 years and an end to corruption are what the people of Egypt want. Muslim extremism will increase in intensity. Why can’t President Mubarak allow the Egyptian people the freedom to elect leadership of their own choice? After all, President Mubarak is not a King or is he?

Leave a Reply

© 2011 Pakalert Press. All rights reserved.