Egypt president scraps decree that sparked protests

CAIRO (Reuters) - Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi has cancelled a decree that gave him sweeping powers and sparked deadly violence, but did not delay this month's referendum on a new constitution as his opponents had demanded.

The announcement that Mursi had scrapped his November 22 decree followed hours of talks on Saturday at his presidential palace, billed as a "national dialogue" but which was boycotted by his main opponents and had little credibility among protesters.

One opposition group dismissed Mursi's efforts at appeasement as the "continuation of deception."

His opponents have demanded Mursi scrap the vote on December 15 on a constitution that was fast-tracked through an assembly led by Mursi's Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists. Liberals and others had walked out, saying their voices were not being heard.

Islamists have insisted the referendum should go ahead on time, saying it is needed to complete a democratic transition still incomplete after Hosni Mubarak's overthrow 22 months ago.

The military, which had run the nation during a turbulent interim period after Mubarak fell, stepped into the crisis on Saturday to tell feuding factions that dialogue was essential to avoid "catastrophe." But a military source said that was not a prelude to the army retaking control of Egypt or the streets.

After Saturday's talks, the president issued a new decree in which the first article "cancels the constitutional declaration" announced on November 22, the spokesman for the dialogue, Mohamed Selim al-Awa, told a news conference held around midnight.

But he said the constitutional referendum would go ahead next Saturday, adding that although those at the meeting had discussed a postponement, there were legal obstacles to taking such a step.

The political turmoil has exposed deep rifts in the nation of 83 million between Islamists, who were suppressed for decades, and their rivals, who fear religious conservatives want to squeeze out other voices and restrict social freedoms. Many Egyptian just crave stability and economic recovery.

RESPONSE

Islamists and more liberal-minded opponents have both drawn tens of thousands of supporters to the streets in rival rallies since Mursi's decree last month. Seven people were killed in violence around the presidential palace, which has been ringed by tanks.

The spokesman for the main opposition coalition, the National Salvation Front, which stayed away from Saturday's talks, said his group would meet on Sunday to discuss a response to Mursi's initiative to cancel his old decree.

But Hussein Abdel Ghani added: "My first personal impression is that it is a limited and insufficient step. We repeatedly said that among our top demands is for the referendum to be delayed."

The April 6 movement, which helped galvanize street protests against Mubarak, said in a statement about the outcome of Saturday's talks, "What happened is manipulation and a continuation of deception in the name of law and legitimacy."

The new decree excluded some elements from the old decree that angered the opposition, including an article that gave Mursi broad powers to confront threats to the revolution or the nation, wording opponents said gave him arbitrary authority.

Another article in the old decree had put beyond legal challenge any decision taken by the president since he took office on June 30 and until a new parliament was elected, a step that can only happen when a new constitution is in place.

That was not repeated, but the new decree said that "constitutional declarations including this declaration" were beyond judicial review.

DIALOGUE

The new decree outlined steps for setting up an assembly to draft a new constitution should the current draft be rejected in Saturday's referendum.

In addition, the opposition was invited to offer suggested changes to the new constitution, echoing an earlier initiative by Mursi's administration for changes to be discussed and agreed on by political factions and put to the new parliament to approve.

Amid the violence and political bickering, the army has cast itself primarily as the neutral guarantor of the nation.

"The armed forces affirm that dialogue is the best and only way to reach consensus," the military statement said. "The opposite of that will bring us to a dark tunnel that will result in catastrophe and that is something we will not allow."

The army might be pushing the opposition to join the dialogue and for Mursi to do more to draw them in, said Hassan Abu Taleb of the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.

He discounted the chance of direct military intervention, adding, "They realize that interfering again in a situation of civil combat will squeeze them between two rocks."

But the military seemed poised to take a more active role in security arrangements for the upcoming referendum.

A Cabinet source said the Cabinet had discussed reviving the army's ability to make arrests if it were called upon to back up police, who are normally in charge of election security.

According to the state-run daily al-Ahram, an expanded military security role might extend to the next parliamentary election and, at the president's discretion, even beyond that.

(Additional reporting by Tamim Elyan; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Read More..

Boehner in hot seat in game of fiscal chicken

WASHINGTON: With room for maneuver slipping away, top US Republican John Boehner is in a bind over how to avoid going over the fiscal cliff: embrace higher taxes and earn conservatives' ire, or scupper a deal and incur Americans' wrath.

Another option, one that few non-partisans see as very viable, is for President Barack Obama to cave in and agree to Republican demands not to raise taxes, even for the wealthiest Americans.

A likelier resolution is a compromise with the White House that avoids the early January shock of automatic spending cuts coupled with tax hikes on nearly all Americans, while laying out enough deficit reduction that eases concern about the country's financial well-being.

In the game of political chicken to see whether Democrats or Republicans blink first, perhaps the trickiest role of all rests with Speaker of the House Boehner, who along with Obama is the principal in the negotiations.

Boehner's guidance of the Republican position in coming days and weeks could signal much about party direction in the wake of an election that saw flagbearer Mitt Romney -- who advocated slashing tax rates across the board -- defeated by Obama.

"To say Boehner is between a rock and a hard place is minimizing the problem he faces," Boston University professor and longtime political consultant Tobe Berkovitz told AFP.

"Boehner is trying to keep public opinion about Republicans from totally cratering, and at the same time keep the Tea Party hardcore conservatives from totally abandoning the party."

Conservative Republican Trent Franks agrees that "our speaker is in an enormously difficult position."

"And I think he's doing the best he can," the congressman told National Public Radio. "That doesn't mean that what he finally arrives at will be something that I can support or it won't. You know, I don't know."

Few people other than Boehner and Obama know the true state of negotiations in what appears as a well-choreographed campaign to thrash out a last-minute deal.

Discussions appear to have stalled, though, and Boehner has accused Obama of having "wasted another week" by not pushing talks forward.

This weekend Boehner "will be waiting for the White House to respond to our serious offer about averting the fiscal cliff," his spokesman Michael Steel told AFP.

Obama has proposed US$1.6 trillion in new taxes over the next decade from higher rates on the wealthiest two percent of Americans.

Republicans countered with a plan for US$800 billion in tax revenue raised by closing loopholes and ending some deductions. Both plans were rejected.

A Democratic official said Saturday that "nothing has changed since yesterday."

Polls show most Americans want to see taxes rise on the wealthy.

With Obama winning re-election on November 6, and his Democrats gaining seats in both the House and Senate, Republicans concede privately -- and some publicly -- that the Democrats have the upper hand.

"President Obama pretty well holds all the cards in this negotiation," Republican Senator Ron Johnson told Fox News.

"If he wants to have tax increases or tax rates go up, I don't see how Republicans can stop him."

Public trust is not in Boehner's favour. A Washington Post/Pew poll this week showed 53 percent of Americans would blame Republicans should the economy dive off the cliff; 27 percent would blame Democrats.

In his weekly address Saturday, Obama said he was willing to find ways to reduce health costs and make more entitlement spending cuts, but as for asking "the wealthiest Americans to pay higher tax rates -- that's one principle I won't compromise on."

Potential future Republican leaders like Senator Marco Rubio are unlikely to want to bend to White House's will.

Rubio, a possible 2016 presidential candidate, gave the Republican response to Obama's address -- and said "tax increases will not solve our US$16 trillion debt."

Boehner has said that, too, but his position is tenuous. On Friday he left open the possibility for compromise on a tax rate rise.

In past negotiations, such as last December's battle over extending the payroll tax holiday, some Republicans felt Boehner gave away too much.

Hashtags on Twitter -- #boehnermustgo, #fireboehner -- have recently left little doubt that some Republicans are fed up with his handling of the talks.

With conservatives demanding unity on taxes, Boehner faces the prospect of revolt from his right flank should he agree to a deal that would raise high-end rates.

Berkovitz said Republicans face two options if they want to avoid the cliff: negotiate and compromise, or hold their noses and "give Obama what he wants. If it goes south, take the election victory in two years and maybe four years."

- AFP/ir

Read More..

Handcuffs that give you an electric shock?

Progress?

(Credit:
Patent Bolt)

Sometimes an invention comes along that makes you excited about the future.

For a long time, it seems that handcuffs have been stuck in the movies of old. They restrain you, but, odd for our interactive world, that's all they seem to do.

Might I tempt you toward futuristic handcuffs that will offer you a small involuntary judder?

I am grateful to Gizmodo for discovering that Patent Bolt has lucked upon a patent that offers bound(less) excitement.

For these are handcuffs that offer surprises. Indeed, they might make the idea of being tased, bro, not quite so bad.

The patent is called "Apparatus and System For Augmented Detainee Restraint."

The augmentations it offers are truly quite something. You see, these handcuffs are "configured to administer electrical shocks when certain predetermined conditions occur."

These shocks might be "activated by internal control systems or by external controllers that transmit activation signals to the restraining device."

This progressive tool is the brainchild of Scottsdale Inventions.

More Technically Incorrect

And while you might be shocked or even excited by the idea of handcuffs with electric shock capabilities, might I move you further?

For Patent Bolt points out that this patent also allows for the idea of a substance delivery system. Yes, these handcuffs might also be used to, well, inject the detained with who knows what -- to achieve "any desired result."

Clearly, the desires of the detained and the detainer might differ. Yet, this patent allows for the possibility of the substance being in the form of "a liquid, a gas, a dye, an irritant, a medication, a sedative, a transdermal medication or transdermal enhancers such as dimethyl sulfoxide, a chemical restraint, a paralytic, a medication prescribed to the detainee, and combinations thereof."

Yes, you really did read the word "paralytic."

Naturally, some will be wondering whether, as in fine restaurants, the arresting officer will ask whether the detained has any allergies.

Some might be concerned, though that -- at least theoretically -- this creation might put quite some power into the hands of those who might not always be lucid or learned enough to use that power wisely.

Read More..

Venezuela's Chavez says cancer back, plans surgery

CARACAS, Venezuela Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced Saturday night that his cancer has returned and that he will undergo another surgery in Cuba.

Chavez, who won re-election on Oct. 7, also said for the first time that if his health were to worsen, his successor would be Vice President Nicolas Maduro.

"We should guarantee the advance of the Bolivarian Revolution," Chavez said on television, seated at the presidential palace with Maduro and other aides.

The president said that tests had shown a return of some cancerous cells and that he would return to Cuba on Sunday for the surgery, his third operation to remove cancerous tissue in about a year and a half.

He called it a "new battle."

The 58-year-old president first underwent cancer surgery for an unspecified type of pelvic cancer in Cuba in June 2011 and had another surgery last February after a tumor appeared in the same area. He has also undergone chemotherapy and radiation treatments.

Chavez made his most recent trip to Cuba on the night of Nov. 27, saying he would receive hyperbaric oxygen treatment. Such treatment is regularly used to help heal tissues damaged by radiation treatment.

Chavez said he has been coping with pain. He said that he was requesting permission from lawmakers to travel and that he hoped to have good news after the surgery.

Read More..

Gay Marriage: Will Justices Follow Popular Opinion?

The Supreme Court's announcement that it would hear two cases challenging laws prohibiting same-sex marriage has reinvigorated one of the most hotly contentious social debates in American history, a debate that has been fueled by a dramatic change in attitudes.

With some states taking significant steps towards legalizing gay marriage, the hearings come at a critical moment.

This week in Washington State, hundreds of same-sex couples lined up to collect marriage licenses after Gov. Christine Gregoire announced the passing of a voter-approved law legalizing gay marriage.

"For the past 20 years we've been saying just one more step. Just one more fight. Just one more law. But now we can stop saying 'Just one more.' This is it. We are here. We did it," Gregoire told a group of Referendum 74 supporters during the law's certification.

Washington is just the most recent of several states to pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, signifying a significant departure from previous thinking on the controversial subject.

READ: Court to Take Up Same-Sex Marriage

A study by the Pew Research Center on changing attitudes on gay marriage showed that in 2001 57 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, while 35 percent of Americans supported it.

The same poll shows that today opinions have greatly shifted to reflect slightly more support for same-sex marriage than opposition -- with 48 percent of Americans in favor and 43 percent opposed.

In fact, just two years ago, 48 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage while only 42 percent supported it -- indicating that opinions have changed dramatically in the last couple of years alone.

David Paul Morris/Getty Images

Supreme Court Set to Tackle Same-Sex Marriage Watch Video

Gay Marriage: Supreme Court to Examine Marriage Equality Watch Video

Marijuana, Gay Marriage Win in 2012 Election Results Watch Video

Check Out Same-Sex Marriage Status in the U.S. State By State

It's hard to imagine that only 16 years ago, the fervent gay marriage debate led to the conception of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union solely held between a man and a woman.

While debating the Defense of Marriage Act in September 1996, former Sen. Robert Byrd said: "If same-sex marriage is accepted, then the announcement will be official: America will have said that children do not need a mother and a father. Two mothers or two fathers will be OK. It'll be just as good. This would be a catastrophe."

Even a few short years ago a newly-elected President Obama did not support the legalization of gay marriage. It wasn't until earlier this year, at the end of hiss first term and with the impending election in sight, that the president told ABC's Robin Roberts the he'd "been going through an evolution on this issue."

Obama went on to attribute his shift in stance to the influence of his daughters.

"You know, Malia and Sasha, they've got friends whose parents are same-sex couples. It wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently," he said. "That's the kind of thing that prompts -- a change in perspective."

Obama isn't the only one to experience an evolution in thinking on the matter of gay marriage. Attitudes towards same-sex marriage have shifted dramatically over the past decade across the board, particularly in the past few years.

Gone are the days when a majority of people opposed same-sex marriage; the days when gay politicians and supporters of same-sex marriage could not get elected.

Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com

Today, nine states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex unions -- a number likely considered inconceivable just a few short years ago. And yet, the same-sex marriage debate still begs for the answering of a question: Will this newfound public opinion, largely driven by young people, women and Democrats, have an effect on the Supreme Court's ultimate decision on the matter?

"I think (gay marriage is) just not a big deal for a lot of young people," Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center says. "The justices are human beings so they're not completely immune to public opinion. ... I think the real question for them is going to be do they want to be on the wrong side of history?"

Read More..