Talk:State Security Investigations Service

pov-check tag

Weasel words: "although there are allegations that it serves more to protect and preserve the existence and continuation of the ruling regime." No source cited.

Non-neutral point of view: "The SSI mission appears to be arresting and torturing the ruling regime's enemies and, in return, the regime apparently gives the SSI benefits and powers with no limits." Again, no source cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.10.52 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with The General Directorate for State Security Investigations.

Agree - same organization--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going to do this now, I'll merge this to that and move that to State Security Service (Egypt) and start editing from there. nableezy - 05:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Err, the other way around, seeing as that was copied from this. nableezy - 05:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

SSI or Regular Police?

The US Diplomatic cable in the Guardian article appears to be talking about the regular police in Egypt. Nowhere does it specifically mention the SSI. This is like conflating local police with the FBI. Michaeltaft (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It does say security services, though you are right that it does not specify the SSI, though the SSI was the main instrument used by the government to suppress the Brotherhood, which this cable attributes to "security forces". I seem to remember a source talking about this cable wrt to the SSI, but Ill have to check on that. In the meantime, if you want to remove it feel free. nableezy - 03:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like it's in good faith, and you're on top of checking into it. It stays for now.Michaeltaft (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Who was the head of SSI?

The article says the head of SSI was arrested, but does not name him. Why? For how long was he responsible for this organization? Is there an article about him? AngBent (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Why are there only Human-Rights-Watchish style of sources without any professional independent references? 188.244.47.2 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)