Debate is set to begin on Wednesday among the full House of Representatives over if and how to amend their version of the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Nearly 300 amendments were submit to the House Rules Committee, which polices the terms of the debate.

Many of the more concerning provisions within the NDAA are already baked in, thanks to the Republican control of the House Armed Services Committee. President Obama has already issued his now-annual veto threat against the NDAA for certain provisions that his administration finds unacceptable. To date, the President has signed every NDAA that has come across his desk, but that’s never a guarantee.

ThinkProgress has already highlighted some of the amendments offered that can improve the House’s bill. But there are still several amendments that, if accepted into the final bill, could render the NDAA truly indefensible:

1. Ban Gitmo detainee transfers to Yemen.

President Obama recently announced, as part of his renewed efforts to close down Guantanamo Bay, that he would lift the moratorium for transferring cleared detainees to Yemen. At present, 59 Yemeni citizens have been vetted and approved for transfer back to their home country. Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-IN) wants to prevent such a move from taking place, however, filing an amendment that would ban any use of Defense Department funds to facilitate these prisoners moving from Guantanamo back to Yemen.

2. Eliminate military aid to Pakistan.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Pakistan don’t precisely get along. He’s been declared persona non grata for his urging the Balochistan region to declare independence from Islamabad and therefore is barred from setting foot in the country. So it’s understandable that Rohrabacher submit an amendment to ban all military aid to Pakistan. In 2012, the administration spent $371.9 million in Pakistan, of which more than 95 percent went to USAID programs providing assistance to some of Pakistan’s poorest. Only $1.9 million of that was spent on aid to Pakistan’s military, making it unclear why Rohrabacher sees the need to pass a full ban into law.
Read more

Robert Becker, the lone American to stay in Egypt to face charges in a case against foreign-funded pro-democracy groups, has escaped the country according to a post on his twitter account.

Safely out of #Egypt. On my lawyers advice, I have unwillingly and angrily gone into exile until appeals get sorted out. #NGOtrial

— Becker – روبرت بيكر (@rbecker51) June 4, 2013

Becker, who was among 43 non-profit democracy activists convicted of illegally using foreign funds to foment unrest in the country, received a two year jail term on Tuesday. The other Americans escaped the country earlier during the process after their employers paid $330,000 a piece in bail — with the money ultimately coming from the U.S. government.

Becker was terminated by his former employer, the National Democratic Institute, after choosing to remain in country to face charges in solidarity with his Egyptian colleagues. David Kenner at Foreign Policy has an behind the scenes look at this decision and how Egyptian employees of the National Democratic Institute viewed the group’s work to get American employees out of the country.

An Egyptian court on Tuesday convicted 43 nonprofit workers of illegally using foreign funds to foment unrest in the country. At least 16 Americans were convicted including the son of U.S. transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, but only one, Robert Becker, chose to remain in Egypt to face charges.

The trial began in early last year and resulted in significant diplomatic tension, including a warning from Washington that it could result in a loss of American aid. Twenty-seven of the 43 defendants received five-year terms, while another five received two years and 11 received 1 year. Becker, who has maintained his refusal to flee the country was to show of solidarity for his Egyptian colleagues, received a two-year sentence.

Judge Makram Awad read the verdict, which also ordered the Egyptian offices of U.S. non-profits where many of the defendants worked, including the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, Freedom House and a center for training journalists, be closed and their and assets seized.

The prosecution argued that the four U.S. groups and one German organization illegally received around $50 million in funds in the months that followed Mubarak’s ouster in February 2011 and were engaged in “illegal polling, training in political activism and other activity without the knowledge or the approval of authorities.”

Travel bans were placed on the suspects earlier during the investigation and trial, including Americans who took refuge in the U.S. embassy, but they were allowed to leave the country on bail of $330,000 each. All but Becker took the opportunity to leave the country, with the bail ultimately paid for by the U.S. Government through the federal funding of their non-profit employers.

The day before the verdict was announced, Becker posted a statement to his blog arguing his innocence, but noted appeals were likely regardless of the outcome:

If evidence matters in an Egyptian court, tomorrow’s verdict will be not guilty. The government witnesses for the prosecution never focused their testimony on the actual charges against us, instead using their 15-minutes of “fame” to complain about the United States.

On my specific charges of forming an illegal NGO, my lawyer did an excellent job of establishing that first, the NGO was in fact legal under Egyptian law, and second, I arrived in 2011, while the NGO was formed in 2005 (Closing argument threads here, here and here).

But this case has been political from the very beginning; so guilty is also real possibility, despite the lack of evidence. We put our faith in the judges and their independence from politics to look solely at the evidence and rule accordingly.

“Regardless of the verdict, we anticipate appeals,” Becker said. “If found not guilty, the prosecution will no doubt appeal and the case could linger for years. Obviously our lawyers will appeal should the ruling go against us.”

Some critics of the Obama administration have asked whether the United States has “lost” Egypt since the revolution that ousted Hosni Mubarak’s regime in early 2011.

But a new poll of the US public raises a new question: has Egypt lost America?

The poll, conducted earlier this year by Zogby Research Services, finds a 22-point drop in favorable opinion of Egypt among Americans, from 58 percent in 2011 to 36 percent this year. The results were released at a CAP event on Friday. Some other key findings from the poll:

Pessimism and uncertainty are the dominant attitudes about how the “Arab Spring” has played out in Egypt, with a plurality (42 percent) saying that they are disappointed and about one quarter (28 percent) uncertain about the impact.

Nearly 40 percent say they are concerned that the Muslim Brotherhood’s election was a setback for Egypt, and another 29 percent are uncertain. A majority of Americans — 53 percent — do not think that the Muslim Brotherhood is committed to democracy, and another one third (33 percent) is unsure.

These negative views don’t seem to be driven by the Islamophobia campaigns in the United States — something my CAP colleagues have thoroughly investigated and exposed. Fully 47 percent of those Americans who say they have a favorable view of Muslims overall say they have an unfavorable view of the Muslim Brotherhood, and another 23 percent say they are not familiar.

Only 14 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. Morsi’s popularity has declined inside of Egypt in recent months — a recent poll of Egyptian attitudes by the Egyptian Center for Public Opinion Research found Morsi’s approval ratings dropping below 50 percent, down from 80 percent last fall.

These negative perceptions translate into weak support for U.S. government efforts to back Egypt during the country’s transition. Nearly half of Americans (47 percent) disagree with American military and civilian aid to Egypt with a Muslim Brotherhood-associated government in power, and 30 percent are unsure.

At a time when the Obama administration is seeking Congressional support for Egypt and other key countries in transition in the Middle East in the larger debate about the U.S. budget, these public perceptions demonstrate a serious challenge in making the case for more support.

Despite these largely negative views, some Americans remain open to the idea of remaining engaged and working with Egypt, even if it is ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. But they are very divided, with one third saying that the U.S. government can engage with the Muslim Brotherhood if it is open to working with the United States, one third stating flatly that the Muslim Brotherhood is anti-American and the U.S. cannot work with them, and one third unsure.

Egypt remains in the early phases of a complicated political, economic, and security transition, and it will require significant external support to deal with these problems. As I have argued, the United States should continue to seek ways to support a smooth transition in Egypt.

This poll of U.S. attitudes on Egypt should serve as a wake-up call for leaders in Egypt and the United States — America’s support is dropping. Rebuilding that support will require Egypt’s leaders to take a more inclusive approach in dealing with their country’s problems and building a new system based on pluralism, and it will require U.S. leaders to make sure we are clearer about supporting our country’s values and interests.

Our guest blogger is Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, where his work focuses on U.S. national security policy in the Middle East and South Asia.

Iranian development of a nuclear weapon would not necessarily cause its arch-rival Saudi Arabia to pursue its own, contrary to conventional wisdom, says a new report out today from the Center for New American Security.

Titled “Atomic Kingdom: If Iran Builds the Bomb, Will Saudi Arabia Be Next? [PDF]” the report was drafted by former Obama Pentagon official Colin Kahl, along with Melissa Dalton and Matthew Irvine. Going against the conventional narrative, the researchers determine that the risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East following an Iranian nuclear test, while “greater than zero,” is unlikely.

Two of the main regional powers — Egypt and Turkey — would be unlikely to seek nuclear weapons due to lack of a threat from Iran on the part of the former and the guarantee of NATO’s nuclear umbrella on the part of the latter. This leaves the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the most likely country in the Middle East to try to obtain nuclear weapons should Iran ever choose to build nuclear weapons. Saudi nuke acquisition, according to conventional wisdom, could either be in the form of a reformatting its native civilian nuclear research program to support military aims or a deal with Pakistan to provide a nuclear guarantee against Iran.

Either of those scenarios is far less likely than most would imagine, according to the report. Instead, as shown in the chart below, the authors believe that it’s far more probable that the Kingdom would rely on scaling up its conventional defenses against Iran or relying on a United States’ nuclear guarantee:

In reaching their conclusion, the researchers weighed the possible disincentives Saudi Arabia would face in opting to develop its own nuclear arsenal, including the risk of economic sanctions and a blow to the Saudis’ reputation globally. Possible security risks that follow along with the possession of nuclear weapons would also be a concern the Saudi government, as well as the odds that such weapons could lead to a split with the U.S. — a result that would far outweigh the benefits of owning nuclear weapons.

The “Pakistani option” — Saudi Arabia coming into possession of ready-make nuclear weapons from Pakistan — is likewise dismissed by the report. While Pakistan and Saudi Arabia maintain strong military ties, and the Pakistani Embassy in Riyadh once said “each Pakistani considers (the) security of Saudi Arabia as his personal matter,” Pakistan would be unlikely to provide nuclear weapons to advance any objective not related to countering India. As noted by CNAS, the nuclear club has not grown substantially since China tested weapons fifty years ago, and has in fact seen more states give up nuclear weapons than acquire them.

Iran still has not decided to pursue nuclear weapons, according to intelligence from the United States and Israel. And despite what the CNAS report views as the low chances of a nuclear arms race should Iran acquire a weapon, it also stresses that the United States’ policy should remain one of preventing Iran from doing so, with military force if necessary.

By Ken Sofer

Amid the continuing political turmoil in Egypt, which left over 50 dead in Port Said in the past week, several members of Congress are threatening to block the $1.5 billion U.S. economic and military assistance to the government in Cairo. Roughly $450 million in promised economic support for Egypt is already on hold in Congress, despite White House efforts to get the money released.

While Egypt’s progress under President Muhammad Morsi towards an open, democratic state has been frustrating and often ineptly managed, the United States needs to remain engaged in efforts to influence the political and economic transition in Egypt, as well as bolster security in one of our most important allies. Both actions will require continued support for a full range of U.S. policy tools — including the annual security and economic assistance the U.S. has delivered since 1979 — and a more robust diplomatic engagement with the multiple centers of power that have emerged in Egypt during the past two years.

U.S. assistance and support for Egypt must be reformed in the long run to reflect new realities, but ending aid to Egypt is a blunt tool that should be reserved for red lines in the relationship, such as a coup d’état, a sharp authoritarian turn, or Egypt reneging on its treaty obligations with Israel. As incoming Secretary of State John Kerry recently stressed, now is not the time to rashly cut off support to Egypt. Clearly, Egypt’s people and leaders will determine its trajectory, but the United States can play a positive role in shaping outcomes.

Congress should release American aid to Egypt to help stabilize the country’s intertwined political, economic and security crises. Egypt remains in the very early stages of what will likely be a protracted period of change. With so much uncertainty and change in the broader region, the United States must continue to invest in building a stronger foundation for an ongoing, mutually beneficial partnership with Egypt as it makes its long, slow march towards true democracy.

For more on the current clashes in Egypt and U.S. options, see “Advancing U.S. Interests and Values at a Time of Change in Egypt” by Brian Katulis, Peter Juul, and Ken Sofer.

The Republican chairpersons of the House’s top security and fiscal committees wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder expressing concern that the Obama administration may release Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, aka the “Blind Sheikh,” as part of a deal with Egyptian officials in the aftermath of the attacks the U.S. Embassy there and the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Abdel Rahman is currently serving a life sentence in a federal prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

In the letter dated September 19, 2012, GOP Reps. Lamar Smith, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mike Rogers, Howard “Buck” McKeon, Peter King, Hal Rogers, Frank Wolf and Kay Granger write:

We are concerned about recent reports that the Obama administration is considering the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman. … Succumbing to the demands of a country whose citizens threaten our embassy and the Americans serving in it would send a clear message that acts of violence will be responded to with appeasement rather than strength.

The Obama administration has already said this report is false (“utter garbage” in the words of a Justice Department spokesperson). Yet these top Republicans ran with the charge anyway. So where did it come from?

It seems that the conspiracy theory started in part with a post on the Weekly Standard’s website last week, quoting a USA Today story reporting that the protests in Cairo may have been planned by a group the blind sheik formerly led.

But Glenn Beck’s website the Blaze reported on Sept. 17 that according to an anonymous source, “the transfer of the Blind Sheikh to Egypt is something that is being ‘actively considered’ by the administration as a solution to the ongoing crisis in the Middle East.” The Blaze also reported DOJ’s denial and did not corroborate the anonymous source’s claim.

Right-wing blog Red State then picked up the story on Sept. 18. Yet Obama administration officials continued to say the story is false. “To my knowledge, it hasn’t come up,” State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said on that day. On Sept. 19, a reporter pressed the issue, and Nuland was a bit more direct. “Let me say as clearly as I can, there is no plan to release the blind sheikh,” she said. “There is no plan.”

Despite the very direct denials, Ros-Lehtinen, Rogers, King and the other top House Republicans ran with the Glenn Beck-inspired accusation and issued the letter. Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post picked up on the story today, reporting the Obama administration officials’ denials. Yet the right won’t let the conspiracy theory die.

“There’s no way to believe anything they say,” said documented conspiracy theorist and leading Islamophobe Andrew McCarthy. (McCarthy was the the former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted Abdel Rahman). “I believe there may already be a nod-and-wink agreement in place.”

ThinkProgress intern Nate Niemann contributed to this post.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Fox News host Sean Hannity got into a bit of a spat last night after Hannity pushed a set of right-wing talking points on President Obama’s foreign policy that even McCain thought went to far. Hannity said Obama “apologized” for the attackers that killed four American foreign service officers but McCain pushed back. “I’m not sure there was an apology,” McCain said.

Hannity then attacked Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi for meeting with Iranian leaders. “President Morsi did go to Tehran and condemn Bashar Al-Assad, which was a pleasant turn of events,” McCain again pushed back. But Hannity wouldn’t budge and McCain then had enough, criticizing Hannity and his network for being “wrong” about Libya:

HANNITY: How is it that Sean Hannity and a few others of us out here predicted with pin-point accuracy that the Muslim Brotherhood would be in charge in Egypt? Their first task when they took over the parliament was to declare Israel, our closest ally, an enemy, their number one enemy. How is it that the administration with all their intelligence and the CIA — how is it that they didn’t see this coming?!

And they kept telling the American people, this is democracy. I don’t think the Muslim Brotherhood is democracy. They want Sharia Law implemented now in Egypt.

MCCAIN: Well, first of all. It is not clear that that’s true. It was and you people on Fox that said in Libya, we didn’t know who they were and let’s not help these people. They had an election and they elected moderates and rejected Islamists and yes, there are al Qaeda factors and there are extremists in Libya today. But the Libyan people are friends of ours and they support us and they support democracy — so you were wrong about Libya.

HANNITY: I don’t think I was wrong about Libya at all.

MCCAIN: Yes, I do. I know you were.

Moments later, as McCain was speaking, Hannity cut him short, saying, “Senator, thanks for being with us.” Watch the clip:

(HT: Crooks and Liars)