For Forbes, Charles Tiefer on some of the main points in a US Government Accountability Office on how the Defense and State Dept. have gone around laws placing restrictions on US aid to Egypt:

The report is a major exploration (77 concentrated pages) of how the U.S. State (and Defense) departments turn a blind eye to measures like, most recently, el-Sisi’s current brutal crackdown which includes recent massive arrests of peaceful protesters, long prison terms for demonstrators, smashing of human rights groups and jailing their attorneys, and the infamous covering-up at the highest levels of the torture-murder of the Italian student, Giulio Regeni.

Throughout the world, U.S. law requires its basic law of aid – known as the “Leahy Law” – that forbids aid to those with credible evidence of human rights abuses.  The GAO studied (for 2011-2015 with aid of roughly $1.3 billion aid to Egypt annually) the workings in the U.S. Embassy in Cairo of the U.S.’s worldwide (for relevant aid receivers) database of rights abusers.  The abuser database did, occasionally, flash red lights about units like the Ministry of the Interior, and, the Cairo police.  There were even infrequent occasions (in Morsi’s time) that the State Department did its job and created barriers or “tensions” about aid going to some abusive Egyptian officials and security units.

But, then, the U.S. system has used many ways, the GAO report showed, to condone the Egyptian government despite abuses.  First, it simply allows Egypt to get away with not responding to questions.  “In a postshipment check involving the transfer of riot control items, such as rubber ball cartridges and smoke grenades, to the Egyptian Ministry of the Interior, the Egyptian government did not respond to a [State Department] question . . . . [Yet]  State closed [this] . . . as favorable.”  “Riot control” sounds like el-Sisi’s version of crushing the demonstrations — what observers reported as peaceful protest.

Second, State was slightly tougher on the Morsi regime ending in 2013, but seems fully to condone the worse abuses of the el-Sisi regime.  The GAO closely analyzed statistical evidence of the vetting of security forces that got coveted U.S.-funded training.  While overall “State rejected” in 2011-2015 “less than 1 percent of the total cases vetted,” the figures for el-Sisi’s time were even more condoning – the State Department “has not rejected any cases since fiscal year 2013, including no cases since the removal of President Morsi in July 2013. (Pages 37-38)”  No cases?  At all? Is this the same Egypt of el-Sisi that is constantly castigated by international human rights groups, and has outraged all Europe by the Regeni matter?

By the way, in what might be deemed the cover-up in Washington of the cover-up in Egypt, State gagged the GAO about telling how bad State was in its delinquency in vetting.  These figures were key to GAO’s blunt conclusion: ‘State and DOD [Defense] are not in compliance with their policies regarding human rights vetting (page 38).”  State gagged GAO this way:  “State deemed our [GAO] estimate of the percentage of Egyptian security forces that were not vetted . . . to be sensitive but unclassified information.  We therefore omitted that information from this report. (page 38)”

You can read the whole GAO report here.

Hamada Saber went to the presidential palace at Ettihadia on Friday night with his family to protest against President Morsi. At some point in the evening, he ended up stripped naked and beaten by police. The beating was caught by a satellite television channel and broadcast live, instantly turning into an iconic moment of police brutality like that of the video of the girl with the blue bra in December 2011.

Here's the video if you haven't seen it.

The authorities immediately reacted to the footage, with presidency and interior ministry pledging to investigate the matter and condemning the violence. [Update: here's the NYT coverage of their contrition.] Prosecutors began an investigation into the security forces in the footage. But Hamada Saber was still held overnight on Friday by police, and by the time he was hospitalized he began to give a different version of events, as al-Ahram reports:

However, in a shocking turnaround of events on Saturday, Saber and his wife, speaking from the same police hospital the CSF transferred Saber to in the wake of their assault on him, seemed to blame the protesters for the bulk of the suffering he was subjected to on the previous night.

"I was standing at Roxy Square [near the palace] drinking a soda, when a large number of protesters who mistook me for a CSF officer because of my black attire attacked me and stripped me of my clothes," said Saber.

"The protesters were angered by the fact that I tried to dissuade them from firing bird shots at the police," claimed Saber.

Fathya, the assaulted man's wife who was by his bedside at the police hospital, sent a message of gratitude to the ministry of interior.

"The police are very respectful and are standing by our side, and the minister's assistant for human rights has passed by and will come again tomorrow [Saturday]," Fathya told ONTV.

Moreover, on Saturday night, Saber, told state TV that he was caught in the fight between protesters and the police.

"The protesters fired an unknown bullet at me and robbed me. When I saw the CSF soldiers coming at the crowd, I was scared and I ran. The soldiers chased after me yelling they wanted to help me. When I fell, they caught me and said: 'you gave us a hard time, man.'"

The public prosecutor then began to change tack and began to blame protestors for beating the man — even though the video evidence clearly showed that whatever protestors did, the police clearly hit Saber. Saber is effusively thanking the interior ministry. Everything points to him having been coerced into not pressing charges at the ministry and being cooperative. From al-Ahram, again:

News reports leaked from "investigators" and "authorities" to media outlets throughout the day on Saturday threw doubts in some people's minds on what actually Saber did, what the police did, and what the police wanted the world to think had happened on Friday night.

One report, for example, picked up by a number of online papers said that investigators who were questioning Saber could charge the assault victim with possession of 18 Molotov cocktail bombs and two buckets of gasoline intended for making fire bombs.

Later in the day, the minister of interior reportedly called the victim to apologise on behalf of the ministry and promised to offer Saber, who said he is a day labourer who is constantly short on gigs, a job.

In the early hours of Saturday night, Saber, who seemed to be recovering well at the police hospital, made the rounds on Satellite TV.

In one such interview, Saber told Al-Hayat TV that the police had a good reason to treat him the way they did because he was resisting arrest.

"I understand what they did because the protesters were near and I was giving them a hard time."

As the Al-Hayat reporter pressed Saber to explain how he was being saved by his attackers, the man insisted: I know what is in my best self-interest. Do not instigate serious problems for me."

He does not want problems. One can understand. But it does appear that he is being threatened into shutting up so that the police and the government don't see this turning into the same iconic moment as previous instances of beatings and abuse. Human rights lawyers and his own family (which was on the scene) have kept on saying that he was beaten by police.

In the most surreal part of this sad episode, Hamada Saber and his daughter Randa ended up arguing about what happened to him on a major satellite TV talk show, with Hamada accusing Randa of having taken money from satellite channels to lie about him. Here's the footage:

Whatever happened to Hamada, the police did what it did, and he appears to have been intimidated against blaming the interior ministry as the government worked overtime to carry out damage limitation. Such practice is actually quite typical of what has happened in Egypt for decades, including since the 2011 uprising. If you look at the court cases into police murders during the 18 days of the uprising, you often have officers leaning on the families of the victims to settle out of court or withdraw charges. Not that many have been actually convicted thus far, or that there has been any attempt at creating either a transitional justice process or carry out serious security sector reform thus far — under SCAF or under Morsi.

[Thanks to Ashraf Khalil and Samer Atrush for some of the links used here. Update: here's Ashraf's piece on the incident.]

Update: More surrealism:

And an eye-witness account of the beating.

This press release from EIPR is typical of many human rights groups attitude towards Tantawi's semi-abrogation of the Emergency Law last week:

EIPR Urges People’s Assembly to Immediately Vote to End the State of Emergency

In a letter Sent to MPs and Parliamentary Bodies: Field Marshal Tantawi’s Declaration Excepting Crimes of Thuggery is a Perpetuation of the Repressive Practices of the Mubarak State

The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) sent a letter this morning to the heads of all political parties' parliamentary bodies, as well as several independent MPs, urging them to immediately and decisively engage with Field Marshal Tantawi’s decision to “end the State of Emergency all over the Republic except when confronting crimes of thuggery.” The EIPR believes this is a perpetuation of the repressive practices of the Mubarak regime and compared Tantawi’s declaration excepting thuggery to Mubarak’s declaration excepting crimes of terrorism and drug trafficking when he extended the State of Emergency in May 2010.

To continue click here.

Do read the letter, which details more steps parliament should take, including reviewing other SCAF decrees and the penal code. Not unrelated, EIPR's director (and an old, old friend of mine) Hossam Bahgat remarks to the AP that parliament has a duty to assume its legislative powers and review decrees issued by SCAF:

Many lawmakers and activists have already demanded that parliament review other military decrees issued since the generals took power last February, including a law banning public protest and strikes, as well as a decision to only partially lift of the hated Mubarak-era emergency laws.

The largely secular and urban activist groups want an immediate end to military rule, and have called for the army to return to its barracks before a constitution be written and a president elected.

“It is primarily a challenge for the (Brotherhood) majority,” said Hossam Bahgat, a human rights lawyer. “If the Brotherhood wants to send a message to its constituency and the public at large they are now an independent and effective legislature, they have no choice but to reopen (discussion) of these decrees.”

That's the outline of one of the political meta-struggles between parliament and SCAF over the next few months.

Yesterday HRW released it's latest world report, with much emphasis on the Arab spring and a call on the international community to strengthen its support for democratic transitions. It was launched in Cairo, and I was at the press conference and asked the question in the clip above about Egypt. With so many observers of the Egyptian scene talking about some kind of deal between the new parliament (esp. the Muslim Brothers) and the military, I thought it was worth talking about. HRW's Ken Roth doesn't like the idea, seeing it as a bad start to a democracy.

I also asked about what the West can do, a major theme of Roth's, including about aid conditionality, which I've been a big believer in for years (and indeed the more radical notion of "no reform, no aid of any kind.")

[Thanks DS for making the footage available.]

Jenifer Fenton reports from Kuwait. This month marks the third year that President Barack Obama's campaign promise to "close Guantanamo" (modified soon after his inauguration to close the detention facility by January 2010) will have gone unfulfilled. A chronology of the Obama administration's postponment of the closure can be found at the LA Times.

The worst of the worst, they were called. Twelve Kuwaitis were “captured” in Afghanistan and Pakistan and sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in the months following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Unproven accusations of associations with the Taliban and Al Qaeda robbed them of years of their lives. The 12 said they left Kuwait to do charity work or to teach Islam or to live more Islamic lives. Many were sold to the Americans for bounty and all said they were tortured by US forces.

Eventually 10 would be freed.

It is unclear why eight, including Nasser Al Mutairi (ISN-205), the first Kuwaiti released in January 2005, were transferred home. Al Mutairi said he traveled to Afghanistan for ribat, according to Combatant Status Review Tribunal transcripts:

Ribat means waiting. It's a form of worship, a kind of practice. There is a great reward in my religion for doing ribat. If someone dies while on the line while doing ribat they are considered martyrs and go to heaven. Ribat is the opposite of Jihad because ribat is defending the line and Jihad is attacking the line.

He was in Afghanistan to wait on the border and discourage anyone from making attacks. Al Mutairi said this was similar to what US forces do in Kuwait, they train and keep the peace.

However, upon his release Al Mutairi told the press that the US made up the record of his statements before a military court.

In November of 2005, the Department of Defense also transferred five more prisoners to Kuwait including Adel Al Zamel (ISN 568), who had been a wanted man in his country prior to 9/11. He had been convicted and sentenced to a year in prison for previous charges of assault against a female college student, an attack known as the Takfir Seven Incident.

In Afghanistan, Al Zamel lived with his family and worked for Al Wafa, an Islamic Charity the US said supports terrorism. The US also suggested that he had advanced knowledge of the 9/11 terrorists attacks. Al Zamel, who had eight children, was placed in what looked like a small metal box on his fifth day at Guantanamo. "The cell was hot. I couldn't sleep at night. The pillow was soaked with my sweat. There was a small opening in the cell wall; I used to push my nose to it," Zamel told McClatchy Newspapers. "I used the bathroom on the floor; there was nothing else to do."

Abdulaziz Al Shammeri (ISN 217), released at the same time as Al Zamel, lived a “normal life” before he wound up in Guantanamo. He was married and had two children, who in 2001 were six and two years old. He was an Islamic scholar and worked at the Ministry of Islamic Affairs in Kuwait. He was planning to get a Master’s degree in Egypt, but decided before doing so he would spend some time teaching Islamic law in Afghanistan. “In my case I don’t even know why I was transferred there (Guantanamo)... and then I have no idea how I was released,” he told me last year. (You can read more about Al Shammeri here)

He too was tortured.

Yes, by God. I was tortured. If the devil would have been there and witnessed these torture sessions, he would... have said ‘how would you come up with such twisted thoughts.’ Satan would say ‘please come on.’ These thoughts would be even surprising to the devil himself.

The following year, in 2006, after a direct appeal by the Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah Al Ahmad Al Jaber Al Sabah to then-President George W. Bush, Omar Rajab Amin (ISN 65) and Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari (ISN 228) were freed, according to US embassy files published by WikiLeaks.

Prior to being imprisoned, Amin had attended the University of Nebraska in the US and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in agriculture. He said he went to Afghanistan after the attacks of 9/11 because he wanted to help orphans and refugees. Charity work was not new for Amin. He had worked in Zagreb, Croatia. “

"The orphans from Bosnia were coming in to a new place, so we would meet with them. We would do many things to make them more comfortable... talking with them, saying kind words, giving them food,and paying for the houses they were staying in,” Amin said according to Guantanamo tribunal transcripts. He then worked for years in Sarajevo. He married a Bosnian woman. When he left his family in Kuwait in 2001, he did not plan to be gone for long. His son was in the hospital and would have heart surgery soon. “It was imperative I returned quickly... I had ... a specific date for [my son's] operation in November, so I had to return quickly.”

Kamel Al Kandari had been a star volleyball player, who played for Kuwait’s national team. Because he was a sports star he had traveled the world, including trips to South Korea, Thailand, Bulgaria, Hungary, Lebanon, Egypt and Iran. Al Kandari went to Afghanistan for charity work as well. He was married with four young children, one who was born when he was locked up by the Americans. Al Kandari was captured wearing a Casio watch, model F-91W — that was evidence against him. The US said the watch was a common watch used by Al Qaeda to detonate improvised explosive devices.

“We have two watches in Kuwait, Fossil and Casio. The watch shows the direction of Mecca,” Al Kandari said according to Guantanamo tribunal transcripts. It also had a compass. “I go all over the world. I am Muslim and pray five times a day. I need it. Many people in Kuwait have this watch. It's not tied to an Al-Qaeda company is it? I swear I don't know if terrorist use it or if they make explosives with it. If I had known that, I would have thrown it away. I'm not stupid. We have four chaplains [at Guantanamo] all of them wear this watch. I am not Taliban or Al-Qaeda.”

While US intervention is often decried in the Arab world, Kuwait is in a unique position having been liberated by US forces during the 1991 Gulf War. But that has not stopped the government of Kuwait’s insistence that Kuwaiti prisoners held in Guantanamo should be returned. Kuwait’s leadership has often, according to cables published by WikiLeaks, complained that Guantanamo prisoners of countries who provide far less support to America have had their citizens returned. But as late as June 18, 2008, almost seven years after 9/11, Kuwait said that it has received "not one word" of information or evidence against eight of Kuwait’s former Guantanamo detainees who had been released by then, according to US embassy cables published by WikiLeaks).

Two prisoners — Fouad Al Rabiah (ISN 551) and Khalid Al Mutairi (213) — were ordered released by American courts in 2009. The ruling by which Al Rabiah, an aviation engineer, was freed stated [PDF] the US government’s evidence was “surprisingly bare,” noting that interrogators used “abusive techniques.”

Al Rabiah returned to Kuwait in December 2009. Like Amin, Al Rabiah, now 52, had a documented history of doing charitable work with reputable organizations in Kosovo, Bosnia and Bangladesh. He planned to help people in Afghanistan. Instead, he lost eight years of his life and missed watching his four children grow up. “I lost so many things, but I know that I was right,” he told me. “I know that they were wrong.” The US threatened to use drugs on him and render him to countries where he would be tortured worse than the treatment he received in Guantanamo, he said. He was also subjected to severe sleep deprivation.

All of the Kuwaiti prisoners held at Guantanamo were put on trial and acquitted upon their return to Kuwait, with the exception of Al Rabiah, who had extensive proof of his innocence. A Kuwaiti official told Al Rabiah when he returned to Kuwait, “There is no basis for a case (against you),” Al Rabiah said.

The US “evidence” against Al Mutairi was equally as damning in its lack of substance. “The Government believed for over three years that Al Mutairi manned an anti-aircraft weapon in Afghanistan based on a typographical error in an interrogation report.” (See this report.) Al Mutairi was unmarried and had no children at the time of his captured, but he cared for his elderly parents in Kuwait. He had traveled to Afghanistan with $15,000 that he planned to use to build a mosque.

Kuwaiti prisoner Abdullah Al Ajmi (ISN 220), 23 years old when captured, had trained as a solider in the Kuwait military - the only Kuwaiti prisoner with military experience. Al Ajmi would later blow himself up in a suicide attack in Mosul, Iraq in 2008. (The Washington Post has reported extensively on Al Ajmi.) Had he indeed been radical before 9/11 or was it his time in Guantanamo that made him that way? Perhaps more accurately the prison experience drove him crazy.

Upon returning to Kuwait he had spent time at a mental hospital. It is hard to know what acts and associations Al Ajmi, accused of being a Taliban fighter, freely confessed to and what he was coerced to say. “I couldn't take it. I couldn't bare the threats and the suffering so I started saying things. When every detainee is captured they tell him that he is either Taliban or Al-Qaida and that is it,” Al Ajmi said according to Guantanamo review board transcripts. “I couldn't bare the suffering and the threatening and the pressure so I had to say I was from Taliban.” The US said he was aggressive and non-compliant and held in disciplinary blocks while imprisoned in Guantanamo.

Two Kuwaiti prisoners Fayiz Al Kandari (ISN 552) and Fawzi Al Odah (ISN 232) could be indefinitely detained in Guantanamo Bay, where they linger outside of the reach of the law. Al Kandari has been tortured. He has been threatened with dogs, deprived of sleep, sexually humiliated, placed in stress positions, and subjected to extreme temperatures and loud music, according to what Al Kandari told his military defense attorney Lt.Col. Barry Wingard.

Both Al Kandari and Al Odah said that they went to Afghanistan to do charity work. As I wrote recently, though they stand accused, neither has had a trial - and no trial is scheduled - to determine their guilt or innocence. They have filed habeas corpus petitions challenging the basis of their detention without charges, but their petitions have been denied. (More on their story here)

It is a travesty of justice that Al Odah will not have his day in court as some of the evidence against him is clearly flawed. One of those who “testified” against Al Odah was Guantanamo prisoner Yasin Basardah, who the US decided was not providing credible information and "should not be relied upon," according to a report by the Washington Post. Basardah had previously been addicted to and trafficked drugs and was jailed numerous times in Saudi Arabia, according a Joint Task Force DoD document ).

A US analyst also said it was assessed that Al Odah was in Bosnia between 1994 and 1996, which “indicates detainee has an extensive history with international militant jihad, and based on his age at the time, probable support and encouragement from family members for his participation,” according to a DoD document.

Al Odah would have been 17 years old then and was in high school, according to his father Khalid Al Odah, a retired Kuwaiti Air Force pilot who fought with US forces to help liberate Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War. “It is really, really outrageous,” said Khalid Al Odah, who also is the chairman of the Kuwaiti Family Committee, which lobbies for the rights of Kuwait prisoners held in Guantanamo.

But as the law stands now, the cells of Guantanamo will be Al Odah’s and Al Kandari’s homes forever. They will die without ever seeing Kuwait or their families again. That is justice, the Guantanamo way.