President Obama Signs Extension of PATRIOT Act: The Same Act He Railed Against During His Campaign

Disinfo
“Lawmakers will soon start debating” … yeah right, it seems like the PATRIOT Act is a permanent reality. I’d like to know more about the scope of this “lone wolf” provision. Via the Washington Post:

President Barack Obama has signed a three-month extension of key surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act.
The law extends two areas of the 2001 act. One provision allows law enforcement officials to set roving wiretaps to monitor multiple communication devices. The other allows them to ask a special court for access to business and library records that could be relevant to a terrorist threat.
A third provision gives the FBI court-approved rights for surveillance of non-American “lone wolf” suspects — those not known to be tied to specific terrorist groups.
Obama signed the three-month extension of the provisions Friday. They were to expire Monday.
Lawmakers will soon start debating a multiple-year extension of the provisions, which have drawn fire from defenders of privacy rights.

A False Peace: Egypt’s Relationship with Israel — and Ours

Anti-War

by M. Junaid Levesque-Alam

When the tumult in Tunisia and Egypt shattered the deep freeze that has afflicted Arabs for almost four decades, countries fond of touting democracy should have been leading the celebrations. Instead, the reigning mood among elites in the United States, and especially in Israel, was one of fear and trepidation.

Though the Obama administration once sounded a supportive note for the popular rebellion, insisting that the “transition” begin “now” or even “yesterday”, it shifted its stance overnight, citing the dangers of revolution and the merits of Mubarak’s intelligence chief, torturer Omar Suleiman. The reversal came on the back of pressure exerted by America’s other clients in the Arab world and Israeli leaders, who both dread the prospect of region-wide revolt.

Accompanied by a chorus of spineless pundits, America and its allies began mouthing the rationales of the dictator himself: stability is good; rapid change is bad; horrors will befall us if the Muslim Brotherhood wins a share of power.

While the hand-wringing of other Arab autocrats should not be discounted, it is the potential disruption to the Egypt-Israel relationship that powered the policy reversal. The Israelis have made known their fear that change in Egypt will leave them bereft of friends “in the neighborhood” — a serious predicament for a state founded, through ethnic cleansing, on top of the neighborhood.

Israel’s security, its leaders and American allies insist, thus depends on its longstanding “peace” treaty with Egypt, signed after the 1978 Camp David Accords. American media outlets and pundits have slavishly echoed this line, warning that a successful revolution may end this much-coveted “peace”, which, we are told, is vital for both Israel and America.

What is it about this “peace” that is so vital that it trumps democracy among avowed democrats?

Turning to the dictionary, we find that peace is: “a state of harmony between people or groups; freedom from strife; reconciliation; the state existing during the absence of war.” While scant harmony exists between Egyptians and Israelis, one might think that the minimum definition — “the state existing during the absence of war” — accurately describes what the treaty represents.

The treaty, however, was like a tiger’s smile: an invitation not to dine but to become dinner. It produced no rollback of Israeli expansion. It signified abandonment of the Palestinians, who remained stateless. It demoralized the public, whose government prevented them from helping fellow Arabs. It engendered pointless hatred, as the regime encouraged anti-Israel angst to curtail anti-regime action. And it paralyzed progress, as unpopular leaders eviscerated civil society to maintain their foreign alliances and bribes.

Thus the “peace” between Egypt and Israel has spawned not an “absence of war” but wars of absence: absent meaningful support for Palestinians, terrorist and Islamist groups filled the void through violence; absent a functional society, millions of youth are unemployed; absent representative leadership, these youth and others are now revolting across the nation; absent American support for democracy, the people are increasingly disillusioned with America. 

What, then, is the value of a “peace” overlaid with conflict after conflict? The answer is simple: a tiger never declines a free meal.

For Israel, unlike Egypt, benefited greatly from the treaty, preying and killing at will, now under the cover of “peace.” True, the Jewish state could have struck a genuine regional peace deal years ago — but why bother when the neighbors can be devoured so easily? Israeli leaders have long adhered to the judgment of early Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann: “The Arabs will be our problem for a long time…They’re ten to one, but don’t we Jews have ten times their intelligence?” Egypt’s jaunt into Israel’s open jaws in 1978 only encouraged that view.

But now, with Egypt’s commitment to surrender in doubt, Israel is desperate to retain its advantage.

Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a former Israeli trade minister and friend of Mubarak, opined that the revolt was “a big blow” in an interview with Israeli Army radio. The Israelis have doubtless lobbied on behalf of America’s newfound darling, Suleiman, whom Israel has blessed as its preferred successor to Mubarak since at least 2008. Eli Shaked, Israel’s former ambassador to Egypt, coyly described the American-backed empowerment of Suleiman as “the positive scenario” for his country. And to make sure this non-transition transition goes smoothly, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has rushed to schedule a meeting with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Barak’s likely message — dark warnings about an Islamist Egypt seeking Israel’s destruction — remains a figment of Israel’s victimhood complex. But it is true that an Egypt and an Arab world shaken loose of quislings would offer a sincere hand to dispossessed Palestinians — and why should we object?

Is it in America’s best interests to tether itself to Israel’s delusions of racial-religious supremacy? Should we expend endless treasure to preserve an Israel-first regional order and suppress the Arabs until the end of time? A freer Arab world and meaningful assistance to isolated Palestinians would lift millions out of frustration and despair, slicing the lifeline to the same extremism that flourishes today thanks in large part to America’s Israel-first foreign policy.

For Egyptians, the revolt is their first chance in decades to reverse course and retrieve dignity and independence. Our foreign policy could benefit from their example.

Israel places resources at Suleiman's disposal "to protect the Egyptian regime"

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (C)
welcomes then Egyptian intelligence
chief Omar Suleiman in 2008

Middle East Monitor

Well-placed Israeli sources have disclosed that the Zionist state has offered to place "all its capabilities" at the disposal of General Omar Suleiman, the recently appointed Vice President of Egypt, for the "protection of the regime in Egypt". This offer includes the implementation of "various operations to end the popular revolution". Israel has also asked Suleiman to work on preventing arms being smuggled into the Gaza Strip.

An official in Benjamin Netanyahu's office said that the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu called Suleiman, who is also the director of Egypt's General Intelligence Service, and expressed his concern about the situation in Egypt. Netanyahu apparently suggested the possibility of Israeli intelligence personnel undertaking various specialist operations to bring an end to the demonstrations. The source added that Netanyahu and Suleiman also discussed ways of securing the border between Israel and Egypt.

The Hebrew newspaper Ma'ariv revealed that in recent days highly placed individuals in Netanyahu's office have conducted a series of telephone conversations with Suleiman to impress on the Vice President the necessity of coordinating on security with Israel. The telephone conversations were described as "urgent" and were designed to alert the Egyptians about the consequences of losing control of the tunnels described by many as Gaza's "lifeline" during the Israeli blockade. Israel is, claims Ma'ariv, concerned about increased activity in the tunnels "given the developments in progress inside Egypt" which have seen the Egyptian army "softening its anti-smuggling activities". In addition, it is claimed that there has been an increase in the number of illegal immigrants entering Israel from Egyptian territory.

Sources inside the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that Israel does not rule out General Suleiman "sacrificing his ties to Israel in order to satisfy the Egyptian street and bestow a measure of legitimacy on his appointment in the general opinion of the public". Suleiman maintains strong ties with Israeli officials and was responsible for several files linked to the Zionist state, including those relating to the ceasefire and a possible prisoner exchange deal with Hamas.

No plans to halt US military aid to Egypt: Pentagon

AFP/Activist Post

WASHINGTON  - The Pentagon on Thursday said it had no plans to halt weapons deliveries to Egypt in coming months despite a popular revolt against President Hosni Mubarak's rule.

While the US administration was examining its economic and military aid to Egypt in light of political upheaval there, military assistance had not been suspended, a spokesman said.

"There's a difference between halting the aid and reviewing it," said Colonel Dave Lapan.

As senior US officers closely monitored fast-moving events in Cairo, Lapan said Egypt's military continued to display "restraint" in the crisis so far.

"To date we have seen them act professionally and with restraint. Again it's a very fluid situation so we're watching every single day," Lapan told reporters.

The White House has suggested that US assistance for Egypt is under review in the face of a wave of street demonstrations demanding Mubarak step down.

Spare parts for F-16 warplanes, coastal patrol ships and fuses for munitions are among items due to be delivered to Egypt in the early part of this year, Lapan said.

The United States has provided tens of billions worth of arms and training to Egypt over more than three decades, with annual defense assistance at $1.3 billion.

Lapan also said the US military had no immediate plans to redeploy its forces in or near Egypt in response to the crisis, but as always the armed forces were carrying out "prudent planning" for all scenarios.

The majority of the more than 600 US troops stationed in Egypt are part of the multinational observer mission in the Sinai, with the remainder providing security at the embassy or working in a defense cooperation office, he said.

A US aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, a guided-missile destroyer and other warships are currently in the Mediterranean with tentative plans to sail through the Suez Canal on the way to the Arabian Sea possibly later this month.

US ships in the Arabian Sea back up the war effort in Afghanistan, with fighter jets based on carriers running combat missions for troops on the ground.

Mubarak's government has long provided the US military with access to its air space and safe passage for naval ships through the Suez Canal, which Washington has used to supply troops in the Iraq war.

The US military's top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, on Wednesday spoke to his counterpart by phone and said in a statement that he had "confidence" in the Egyptian army's ability to provide security for the country and the Suez Canal.

US officials and analysts view the role of Egypt's army as crucial in eventually resolving the crisis, and the administration is hoping that longstanding defense ties with Cairo will provide some leverage.

The White House said Wednesday that US contacts with various levels of the Egyptian armed forces had helped rein in possible violence earlier in the week.

US Media Gloss Over American Role in Egyptian Repression

Common Dreams

The Delicate Tightrope of Supporting a Dictator

by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)

The 'Roundtable' panel on ABC's 'This Week'
is a prime example of where to find tepid and
sloppy coverage of how US foreign policy
has supported the Mubarak regime over the
decades. It does not, in fact, take an
"Egyptian perspective" to appreciate how
crucial U.S. support has been to the Mubarak
dictatorship. One only needs to look at the
history of the past three decades--a history
U.S. media would prefer that we overlook,
or treat as part of a delicate "balancing act."

But since U.S. corporate media are accustomed to viewing international affairs through the lens of U.S. elite interests, much of the current coverage elides Washington's role, or presents it as a "tightrope" balancing act for the Obama administration. As one New York Times story (1/26/11) put it, "The administration has tried to balance its ties to Mr. Mubarak with expressions of concern about rigged elections and jailed dissidents in his country." USA Today (2/1/11) announced: "The upheaval in Egypt has put the United States in a delicate diplomatic situation: pressing for a more democratic Egypt, but wary that too much change could threaten the stability that Egypt helps bring to the Middle East."

On the PBS NewsHour, Margaret Warner (1/31/11) said, "The chaos in Egypt posed a delicate diplomatic challenge for the United States: appealing for democracy without alienating an ally." Or as NBC Nightly News anchor Kate Snow (1/29/11) asked: "Is it a bit of a tightrope that the U.S. has to walk here, though, in terms of wanting to promote democracy on the one hand, but being a longtime ally of the Mubarak administration?"

An L.A. Times editorial (1/28/11) implausibly argued that the U.S. record of support for Mubarak would assist efforts to promote democracy: "As an ally and benefactor, the United States has helped prop up the 82-year-old strongman since he took power 30 years ago, and today it is in a unique position to impress upon him the importance of democracy."

Some of the recently released WikiLeaks cables on Egypt provided another window into media thinking on the issue. The January 28 New York Times story was headlined, "Cables Show Delicate U.S. Dealings With Egypt's Leaders." The same day, the London Guardian had a very different headline: "WikiLeaks Cables Show Close U.S. Relationship With Egyptian President." The Times account buried some of the more damning details, which make clear that U.S. officials are keenly aware of the prevalence of torture and brutality under Mubarak (FAIR Blog, 1/28/11).

ABC's Christiane Amanpour offered what amounted to a rationalization of U.S. support for Egypt, explaining (1/26/11) that

the implications are really big because this is very fundamental. Egypt receives the most American aid, more than $1 billion a year. It has the same goals as the United States against radicalization and terrorism, pro the Israeli peace process. But the United States, many people are saying, needs to get ahead of the curve, because otherwise it might be left behind as the people demonstrate their will.

Some outlets saw a distinct shift in the Obama administration's position--well ahead of any evidence to that effect. The Washington Post published a January 27 piece headlined "As Arabs Protest, U.S. Speaks Up," which declared that the White House was "openly supporting the anti-government demonstrations shaking the Arab Middle East," adding that the administration had "thrown U.S. support clearly behind the protesters, speaking daily in favor of free speech and assembly even when the protests target longtime U.S. allies such as Egypt."

The Post's evidence, however, was thin: a quote from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating that the Mubarak government should "respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people." The strongest support for the notion that the U.S. was backing the street protests came from an anonymous administration official--hardly an indication of "speak[ing] up" in "open support."

Another Post article tried to make the case again on January 31:

The Obama administration firmly aligned itself on Sunday with the protest movement that has overtaken Egypt, calling for an "orderly transition" to a more representative government amid rising U.S. concern that the demonstrations are turning violent and that unrest could spread across the Arab world.

Several paragraphs later, though, the Post added that the "shift in message had no visible effect in Cairo and other Egyptian cities," and reported that prominent activist Mohamed ElBaradei's assessment was that the rhetoric "had landed 'like lead" in the Egyptian capital."

It would seem that Egyptians have a clearer view of U.S. policy than many pundits and mainstream journalists. That point was driven home when NBC reporter Richard Engel, to his credit, brandished a tear gas canister that had been fired at protesters (1/28/11):

These were the tear gas canisters that were fired by all those riot police today. And if you look at them closely, they say clearly in English, "Made in the USA." Egyptians have been picking them up, they've been looking them over.

But then, as if this straightforward illustration of the U.S. role in Egyptian repression was too revealing, Engel qualified his observation: "And from an Egyptian perspective, it does seem like Mubarak and the United States are working together. So the U.S. is walking a fine line here."

It does not, in fact, take an "Egyptian perspective" to appreciate how crucial U.S. support has been to the Mubarak dictatorship. One only needs to look at the history of the past three decades--a history U.S. media would prefer that we overlook, or treat as part of a delicate "balancing act."

Gilad Atzmon: Global Intifada

Gilad Atzmon

Haaretz reported today that  “Israel urges the world to curb criticism of Egypt's Mubarak.”

Apparently Jerusalem seeks to convince its allies that it is in the ‘West's interest’ to maintain the stability of the Egyptian regime. In other words, Israel urges the ‘Goyim’ to ‘keep being subservient to Jerusalem’. Jerusalem was  foolish enough to admit that Mubarak was there to serve Israeli and ‘Western’ interests.

Over the weekend Israel called on the United States and a number of European countries to restrain their condemnation of President Hosni Mubarak to “preserve stability in the region.”

Let’s all be clear about it : as far as Israelis are concerned, ‘stability in the region’ means a few million Jews living in ‘safety’ on Palestinian land, at the expense of one billion Muslims. But I guess that this Zionist militant expansionist fantasy is crumbling in front of our eyes now.

Apparently the Israelis detect some confusion within Western capitals : "The Americans and the Europeans are being pulled along by public opinion and aren't considering their genuine interests," one senior Israeli official said. The Israeli official was kind enough to suggest to Europeans and Americans what their ‘genuine interests’ are. Seemingly, the Israeli always know better.

The Israeli official was also clever enough to envisage a tidal wave of mistrust between the West and its Middle Eastern puppet regimes. "Even if they (the Westerners)  are critical of Mubarak, they have to make their friends  (the puppets) feel that they're not alone. Jordan and Saudi Arabia see the reactions in the West, how everyone is abandoning Mubarak, and this will have very serious implications,"

The senior official is obviously correct -- We are indeed, entering a new era : Corrupted regimes in the Middle East are about to crumble, one after the other, as people all across the region rise up. Those in the West who were stupid enough to dismiss the Palestinian Intifada are now waking up to the reality of  a regional Intifada. And the collapse of American puppet regimes in the region could dramatically affect global economies and energy prices,  bringing Europe and America to their knees.

For years I have been arguing that Palestinians are at the forefront of the battle for humanity; alone,  they faced Zionist evil.  However, the time has changed, and  it isn’t just Gaza or the West Bank anymore -- Today it is Cairo and Amman, and tomorrow, as energy prices sore beyond affordability, it could well be any Western capital.

We are all Palestinians, because we share the same enemy.  We are all tired of Zionist driven expansionist wars. We don’t want ‘Israeli officials’ to preach to us about Western interests. We don’t want to see our elected politicians dancing to the Jewish Lobby’s irritating tune. It is time to emancipate humanity from the Zionist grip.

Interview with Mohamed Elbaradei

Real Clear Politics

By Fareed Zakaria GPS

Mohamed ElBaradei speaks in Cairo

ZAKARIA: Mohamed ElBaradei is, perhaps after President Mubarak, the crucial figure in this story. After his leaving his post as head of the world's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, he has devoted himself to agitating for change in Egypt, his home country. And how he is the most high-profile leader of the opposition movement in Egypt.
He was put under house arrest on Friday, but is able to join me now from his home in Cairo. Thank you for joining us, Mohamed ElBaradei.

MOHAMED ELBARADEI, FORMER IAEA DIRECTOR: It's always a pleasure to be with you, Fareed.

ZAKARIA: Mohamed, what do you make of the most recent moves by President Mubarak appointing Omar Suleiman as his vice president, appointing another former army officer as the prime minister, the former aviation minister. What is your reaction?

ELBARADEI: Well, Fareed, I think this is hopeless, desperate attempts by Mubarak to stay in power. I think it is loud and clear from everybody in Egypt that Mubarak has to leave today, and it is non-negotiable for every Egyptian. People have been saying or demonstrating for his -- for him to leave. Today, the demonstrations say that he should be put to trial. If he wants to save his skin, if he has an iota of patriotism, I would advise him to leave today and save the country.

ZAKARIA: And what would you like to see happen after that? Let us say Mubarak resigns. What is the -- what are the next steps that must happen in Egypt?

ELBARADEI: Well, the next step, Fareed, as everybody now agrees on, is a transitional period, a government of national salvation, of national unity, and that will prepare the ground for a new constitution, free and fair election. These are the three basic demands, what every Egyptian is agreeing upon. And of course, you know, hoping that the army will be able to control the situation.
Right now, Fareed, the country is ablaze. Looting is everywhere. Disbanded police forces that were disbanded for -- nobody knows how they were disbanded -- are looting around the country. The army is not able to control things. Millions are in the streets. This is a country that's falling apart, and the -- he needs to leave today. That will hope help (ph), at least 70 percent, to be followed by a smooth transition of a national unity government, to be followed by all the measures set in place for a free and fair election and democratic constitution.
Egypt needs to catch up with the rest of the world. We need to be free, democratic, and -- society where people have the right to live in freedom and dignity. That's what you get after 30 years, Fareed, of utter brutal dictatorship supported by everybody in the name of pseudo-stability.

ZAKARIA: You mention the army, Mohamed. Talk about that, because Omar Suleiman is himself a former -- a member of the armed forces. The new prime minister is. There is speculation that the army is backing these moves by Mubarak and has in effect taken control of the country.

ELBARADEI: Well, I don't think that the army has taken control of the country, Fareed. If you -- if you look around, there's half million people everywhere, in the middle of Cairo, in the middle of Alexandria.

Omar Suleiman is a person I know. I have respect for him. But the army is (inaudible) not change of personalities. We need a change of system. We need to have substantive, drastic shifts from a dictatorship into a democracy, like the rest of the world. What I have been authorized, mandated by the people who organized these demonstrations and by many other parts of the Egyptians, to agree on a national unity government. And I hope that I would -- I should be in touch soon with the army, and we need to work together. The army is part of Egypt, and we have the highest respect for them as civilians, and we need to work together to get Egypt (inaudible).

What do we have today? A country that's falling apart.

ZAKARIA: You say you are -- you hope to be in contact with the army. Have they reached out to you? Do you intend to reach out to them?

ELBARADEI: Not yet, Fareed. I haven't. I mean, the whole situation has been moving very, very fast, and -- but today there has been a number of declarations by different parts of the Egyptian society, from right, left and center, mandating me to work in -- with them, with the army, with everybody in Egypt, with outside world, to ensure smooth transition.

ZAKARIA: You've heard President Obama's statements in which he says he has asked President Mubarak to act on his promise to change, to bring democracy to Egypt. Do you think -- do you want him to do more than that?

ELBARADEI: Of course I do. I have, as you know, the utmost respect for President Obama as a person. I worked with him during my time at the IAEA. I have a lot of admiration for him. But I can tell you, honestly, as a friend of the U.S., that your policy right now is a failed policy, is a policy that is lagging behind, is a policy that is -- is -- having the effect here in Egypt that you are losing whatever left of credibility.

And -- however, this is -- this has been -- will be overtaken by events, and I want you to be on top of things. Your policy right now -- and this is an honest advice, Fareed -- is absolutely has no credibility here in Egypt. That is -- that is coming from a friend of the U.S., somebody who lived in 15 years in the U.S. and worked for throughout my life in the U.S. I would like to see a democratic Egypt, continued -- a democratic Egypt that is able to have a friendly relationship with the U.S. We have always had a lot of common interests, and there is nothing to believe that a democracy here will not lead to a better relationship with the U.S., based on respect and on equity.

ZAKARIA: Do you want President Obama to come out and publicly ask President Mubarak to resign?

ELBARADEI: I -- I mean, obviously, that is going to happen, I think, Fareed, if not today, tomorrow, you know. It will happen that he has to leave the country within the next three days. That is -- there is no way out, as I see it. It's better for President Obama not to appear that he is -- he is the last one to say to President Mubarak, it's time for you to go, leave in dignity before things are going out of hand. We have seen the fate of many dictators. I do not want to see that happening in Egypt.

ZAKARIA: Mohamed, one of the visions that haunts Americans is of the Iranian revolution, where a dictator, pro-American dictator, was replaced by an even worse regime that was even more anti-American and more threatening to the region. People worry about the Muslim Brotherhood. Are you confident that a post-Mubarak Egypt will not give rise to some kind of Islamic fundamentalist force that will undermine the democracy of Egypt?

ELBARADEI: I'm quite confident of that, Fareed. This is a myth that was sold by the Mubarak regime, that it's either us, the ruthless dictators, or above (ph) them the al Qaida types.

You know, the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian model, has nothing to do with extremism, as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places. The Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously conservative group. They are a minority in Egypt. They are not a majority of the Egyptian people, but they have a lot of credibility because all the other liberal parties have been smothered for 30 years. They are in favor of a federalist (ph) state. They are in favor of a wording on the base of constitution that has red lines (ph) that every Egyptian has the same rights, same obligation, that the state in no way will be a state based on religion.
And I have been reaching out to them. We need to include them. They are part of the Egyptian society, as much as the Marxist party here. I think this myth that has been perpetuated and sold by the regime has no -- has no iota of reality.
As you know, Fareed, I've worked with Iranians, I've worked here. There is 100 percent difference between the two societies.

ZAKARIA: And finally, would you be willing to serve as a president, as an interim president, if Mubarak were to step down?

ELBARADEI: I'm willing to do whatever I can do to save this country, Fareed. You know, this is not my priority. I have a lot of interests in global issues, as you know, humanity, inequity, arms control, and I continue to be active on all these issues. But if my people here, the Egyptian people want me to serve as a bridge from authoritarian system into a democracy, I will not let them down. That is -- I owe it to them here.

ZAKARIA: Mohamed ElBaradei, pleasure to have you on, and I hope we'll have you on again soon.

ELBARADEI: Pleasure to talk to you, Fareed.