Mubarak trial encapsulates divisions in Egypt

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

CAIRO –  Hosni Mubarak, on trial for his life, is ferried to court by helicopter from a presidential hospital suite. His sons and co-defendants swagger in wearing designer track suits and no handcuffs. His security chief is treated with near reverence by police in the courtroom.

For activists in Egypt, the scenes only deepen their feeling that the authoritarian system the ousted president oversaw remains largely in place, almost a year since the 18-day uprising that toppled him.

When Mubarak's trial began five months ago, many hoped it would bring not only punishment but a clear sense of victory for a movement that aimed to wipe the slate clean and start again.

Instead, it has boiled down to a bare-knuckled showdown between supporters and foes of the "revolution," reflecting the tensions that have been gripping the country.

Those divisions were clear in court Tuesday as Mubarak's defense began its arguments. His chief lawyer, Farid el-Deeb, went for maximum effect with flowery language depicting him as an unjustly maligned victim who tried to improve Egypt during 29 years in power.

"This man before you, who is 83, has been fatigued and burdened by ailments and mauled by the malice of cunning people," el-Deeb said.

"He is looking to your justice to save him from the oppression that surrounds him from every direction, after his reputation and history have been targeted by tongues and pens."

The courtroom erupted when he said that Mubarak in fact supported the revolution. El-Deeb quoted from a letter he said Mubarak wrote to his lifetime friend Ahmed Shafiq -- who was prime minister at the time of the uprising -- saying that protesters were exercising their right to stage peaceful protests but were infiltrated by criminals and Islamists who destroyed public property and challenged the regime's "legitimacy."

"Lies, lies!" and "Execution for Mubarak!" screamed the lawyers representing the families of protesters killed by police during the revolution.

They rushed at el-Deeb and nearly set upon him, but court police quickly moved to keep them back.

Mubarak, who has worn an unwaveringly grim expression ever since the trial began on Aug. 3, looked content as el-Deeb praised him. For the first time in the trial, he sat in a wheelchair in the courtroom cage where the defendants are kept, rather than lying on a hospital gurney as he has in previous sessions.

Mubarak, his former security chief Habib el-Adly and four top security officers are charged with complicity in the killing of hundreds of protesters and could face the death penalty if convicted. Mubarak's sons Alaa and Gamal, along with their father, are charged with corruption in the same trial, a crime that would carry a prison sentence.

But the near-melee over el-Deeb's speech gave a peek into the issue running under the surface of the trial: what the revolution has really meant for Egypt.

That issue has polarized Egyptian politics since Mubarak's Feb. 11 ouster and the takeover of the reins of power by army generals widely believed to be beholden to him, led by his loyal defense minister of 20 years, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi.

Many of the activists who engineered the anti-Mubarak protests see the generals as just an extension of their former patron's regime with no interest in bringing significant change. Notably, the military only ordered the arrest of the former president and his two sons after mass protests demanding that they be brought to justice.

Activists also charge that the generals have methodically tried to divert attention away from the revolution's main goals -- freedom, democracy and social justice -- and instead decreed a cumbersome transition, allowing Islamist parties to dominate the political landscape and missing what they see as a historic chance to become a truly democratic state.

At the same time, the generals have gone to great lengths to discredit protest leaders and capitalize on Egyptians' longing for stability by demonizing the revolutionaries as foreign agents and troublemakers while projecting an image of themselves as the nation's true patriots.

Activists, lawyers for the victims and some in the public see the soft treatment for the defendants as evidence that those in power still grant Mubarak and those around him the aura of prestige.

Police assigned to courthouse security have been captured on camera offering their former boss el-Adly a salute as he arrived for one of the early hearings. Those images caused an uproar, but el-Adly, who as interior minister commanded the intensely hated police force, continues to walk from the armored police vehicle that brings him from jail to the courtroom without escort or handcuffs. Dark sunglasses, a navy blue baseball cap and a matching prison uniform have become the iconic look of a man whose name once struck fear in the hearts of the regime's foes.

Similarly, Mubarak's sons parade boldly into the courthouse, with Alaa carrying a purple chair that he sits on when inside the defendants' cage. Both Alaa and Gamal, who barely a year ago was thought to be Egypt's second most powerful man after his father, wear immaculate white track suits with matching sneakers.

Two other security commanders face dereliction of duty charges in relation to the crackdown on protesters in the trial. A friend of the Mubarak family, Hussein Salem, who has fled the country, is also a defendant in the corruption component of the trial.

Activists grumble that the treatment contrasts with the use of deadly force by troops in recent months against peaceful protesters demanding that the generals step down immediately -- as well as the use of cursory military tribunals to prosecute at least 12,000 civilians, including protesters, since the generals took over. Those rounded up over the months from Tahrir Square complained of being beaten, hit by clubs or shocked by stun guns while in police custody.

Late Tuesday, witnesses said thugs attacked them in the square, burning tents, apparently trying to clear it out ahead of the Jan. 25 anniversary of the beginning of the uprising. No casualties were reported.

The prosecution last week gave a startlingly harsh and dramatic denunciation of Mubarak in its courtroom summations, calling him a tyrant who maneuvered to get his son Gamal to succeed him.

Tuesday's hearing was the first of five set aside by Judge Ahmed Rifaat to hear the defense argue its case. El-Deeb, who over the years built a reputation as a suave and expensive celebrity lawyer, sharply criticized the prosecution's comments, saying it used phrases that "for no reason insulted Mubarak."

"Mubarak is neither a tyrant nor a bloodthirsty man. He respects the judiciary and its decisions, a clean man who could say no wrong," he said.

"Mubarak has seriously and faithfully worked to the best of his abilities and energy for Egypt and its people, lived a life burdened by his nation's problems," he said. "For that, he is worthy of justice and no one should discredit his efforts, question his loyalty or history."

The victims' lawyers were again enraged when Salwah al-Soubi, a member of the defense team, chanted "Mubarak, we love you!" in addressing the ousted leader in the defendants' cage.

"Sit down and shut up!" shouted some of the lawyers for the victims.

Outside the trial venue, some 300 hundred Mubarak supporters chanted slogans in support of the former president. They came close to fighting with about 100 relatives of the victims, but riot police intervened and separated the two camps.

View the original article here

Mubarak,trial,encapsulates,divisions,Egypt

Read More | comments (3)

Put Iran War March on Trial - Daily Beast

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

We’re doing this terrible thing all over again. As before, we’re letting a bunch of ignorant, sloppy-thinking politicians and politicized foreign-policy experts draw “red line” ultimatums. As before, we’re letting them quick-march us off to war. This time their target is Iran. And heaven knows Iran’s leaders are bad guys capable of doing dangerous things. But if we’ve learned anything, anything at all, from plunging into war in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it is this: we must have a public scrubbing of fighting rhetoric before, not after, the war begins.

Sure, there are risks in acting so sensibly. It does signal hesitation, even weakness, to the adversary. But to me, the far greater risk lies in not hesitating. The real risk is not fully, thoroughly, and publicly laying bare the case for war. In every major war of the last decades, the public assumed the government and the experts knew what they were talking about and proposing to do. But after a year or so, that faith collapsed. Except for those who would bless the sound of the cannon wherever it led, everyone soon realized the terrible truth: that government leaders had little or no idea what they were doing, what the invaded country was really like, and what could and could not be accomplished at what cost. By then, it was too late. Once our truly precious troops had been sacrificed and our prestige had been cast upon the waters, patriotism and politics overwhelmed reason.

For our own sake, don’t let this happen again. Let’s have carefully planned and extended public hearings on the pros and cons of war with Iran. Let those hearings be conducted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or a special public commission established by President Obama. Let’s do the job painstakingly and systematically, especially because Election Day beckons with its talons of stupidity and rashness. Yes, yes, I realize full well that a public pretrial is far from a perfect or even a good solution. But I cannot think of another way to slow down our familiar passive march toward war, and compel its drum majors to parade their plans on why the war must be fought and how it can be won. Hearings will surely confuse a lot of people, but at least give them their democratic chance to judge.



Iranian navy fires a Mehrab missile during the "Velayat-90" naval wargames in the Strait of Hormuz in southern Iran on January 1, 2012. Iran defiantly announced that it had tested a new missile and made an advance in its nuclear programme after the United States unleashed extra sanctions that sent its currency to a record low., Ebrahim Noroozi / Getty Images

To step back, there are two issues likely to spark fighting with Iran: Tehran’s threat to block an internationally recognized waterway at the Strait of Hormuz, and its relentless moves toward acquiring nuclear weapons.

On the surface, the strait question is open and shut. If Tehran violates a fundamental principle of international law and closes an international waterway, that waterway must be reopened by whatever force necessary. My gut reaction is right there. But then the questions arise: Why does this burden fall almost entirely on the United States? What of the other states that buy and sell the Gulf oil that moves through the strait? How long will it take, and at what cost, to reopen the strait and keep it open? Is it necessary to attack shore targets to accomplish the job? How far ashore? And what of economic destruction and, above all, civilian casualties? Is such a military action likely to convince the Iranians that they must acquire nuclear weapons, or would it dissuade them? Would a U.S.-led naval action in the strait make it more likely that Israel would use this as cover to launch a full-scale attack against Iranian nuclear facilities? And would this broader action trigger Iranian retaliation against both Israel and the United States? There are no hard and fast answers to most of these queries. And yes, some military plans would be aired partially to Tehran’s advantage. Nevertheless, their being raised and addressed gives Americans a much clearer sense of what they’re getting into—and, more, compels Congress and the executive branch to think much harder about their intended actions. Often, administrations don’t answer the toughest questions themselves until they have to, until it’s too late.

I realize full well that a public pretrial is far from a perfect or even a good solution. But I cannot think of another way to slow down our familiar passive march toward war.

The red lines being drawn against Iran’s growing capability to construct nuclear weapons are even more tortured and dangerous. These lines are all to the effect that if Tehran continues to move toward a nuclear-weapons capability, President Obama will attack and take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. I won’t bore you with the exact formulations, which are not intended to be exact. The administration doesn’t want to be exact and thus to tie its own hands. Nor could administration officials formulate exact words, because they can’t yet agree upon them.

The bottom line is that the administration is firming up its threats without absolutely committing itself to any particular action beyond ratcheting up rhetorical pressures and economic sanctions. Obama has been mostly careful to avoid pronouncements recently and has put that burden at a little distance from himself—onto the worthy shoulders of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta’s now famous “red lines” have been a bit pinkish, for good reason, leaving some things to Tehran’s imagination. Or perhaps his intention is just to say enough to keep Israel from pulling its own unilateral trigger.

It doesn’t take a genius to see what lies ahead in our nation’s election year. Most Republican presidential candidates are saying that Iran will never get close to nukes if they’re in the White House. The candidates are outdoing one another in outrageous commitments to sound tough. Recently, Mitt Romney put it like this: “If we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon … If you’d like me as the next president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.” And though we all know how careful Obama is, the dynamics of campaigns are bound to push him toward incaution to fend off charges of “weakness.” This is what happens to presidents in most elections.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee or some public commission has to pose the tough questions here: Do we really know enough to hit and destroy the key underground targets? If not, why go ahead? How long will it take for Tehran to rebuild the facilities and make them less vulnerable? What’s the potential for collateral damage on oil prices and lives? If Washington doesn’t use force, will Israel go it alone, and will Tehran regard this as a quasi-American attack anyway? If Iran actually acquired nukes, why wouldn’t prospects of an overwhelming Israeli or American attack in a crisis deter it? Iranian leaders haven’t acted like crazy Hitlers. They’ve been pretty cautious, forever issuing threats and making trouble behind the scenes, which suggests they’re deterrable. Would war on Iran trigger worldwide terrorist attacks? Is it in the overall interests of the United States, given our worldwide security needs and economic weaknesses, to enter another war? And don’t fool yourselves, this would be war.

As is our tragic pattern, almost all these tough questions are unasked and unhonored. All one hears is the familiar boasts and threats. They are rarely probed by our media stars.

Senator J. William Fulbright’s brilliant hearings on Vietnam and the James Baker/Lee Hamilton Iraq Study Group both came far too late to save us. But there’s still time now for a full-scale, nonpartisan, and systematic examination of policy. Don’t let the usual hawks stop us with the argument that we’d be giving away too much information and signaling weakness to the enemy. What we’d truly be giving away if we heeded these hawks is not our military plans, but our constitutional and democratic rights to freely and openly debate whether our sons and daughters once again must fight and die.

View the original article here

March,Trial,Daily,Beast

Read More | comments