Slashdot Mirror
Egyptian President Overthrown, Constitution Suspended
Al Jazeera and other publications are reporting that Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi has been overthrown by the country's army. General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, head of the Egyptian armed forces, said in a televised announcement that Morsi had been removed from power, the Constitution had been suspended, and Adli al-Mansour, leader of Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court, had been appointed to lead the country until elections can be held. "Sisi called for presidential and parliamentary elections, a panel to review the constitution and a national reconciliation committee that would include youth movements. He said the roadmap had been agreed by a range of political groups." According to the BBC's report, "General Sisi said on state TV that the armed forces could not stay silent and blind to the call of the Egyptian masses," and "The army is currently involved in a show of force, fanning out across Cairo and taking control of the capital."
Doesn't Egypt use a King?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Egypt was a better place back then, center of culture and learning in the world.
Now it's just shit.
Why is it that it's precisely in times where upholding the constitution is at it's most important (in times of turmoil), that so many countries do away with the constitution entirely and suspend it?!
Step 1) Spy on your citizens ....
Step 2)
Step 3) Profit!
since we don't seem to be using right now I don't see any problem.
So if the constitution was suspended and the leader of the constitutional court appointed leader, does the first action cancel the potency of the second?
Under the circumstances I'm guessing not, but the irony is at least a little bit tasty.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
Funny is says the Constitution was Suspended. Like it was ever a democracy in the first place.
So Obama throws Mubarak under the bus so Egypt can have democracy, now he supports a military coup to remove a democratically elected leader by the same military that used to keep Mubarak in power. Way to have a consistent foreign policy, chief.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Didn't the Egyptians just elect this guy a year ago?
They don't need to, the armed forces and the president are controlled by the same people. And maybe is the same people that controls the Egypt army too.
So who is running Egypt? Is it the international bankers, the west, islamic nutjobs, or military officials on power trips? At-least in the US we know it's the first group in conjunction with corporations. But with Egypt I'm confused.
While the Egyptian Army is certainly no paragon of freedom (or battle prowess, but that's another story...), at least there is a formidable power in Egypt that leans toward secular sanity and against Islamist lunacy. Egypt could again one day stand with Turkey (for all its troubles) and Jordan as examples of modern, stable states among the insane theocracies that surround them.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
If it happened in america slashdot would be called crazy if they didn't support it. Remember we have a Your rights online section, well, egypt certainly managed to fit in there a few times, its worth following up on what happens there and I personally am glad that revolution is happening.
If you happen to be american, I can only suggest doing the same. Its not as if your government has been acting very nice lately.
"News for nerds" does not mean, and at no point in Slashdot's history ever has meant "exclusively news that is exclusively for nerds".
You'd think there'd be an open sourced project for hyperdemocracy. That you can just install in new governments that lets every person vote and petition the government more actively than they do now. It might take a specialized security nationalized Internet that is less susceptible to be hacked. But the code to allow people to petition the government, check how the president is acting vs what the people want, etc etc etc, could be reasonably done with an Open Source Hyperdemocracy ap. So when dictactors are removed, new governments by the people could be set up just by installing software. It might not be the best plan, but it could work. And if it does work, more places would adopt it.
God spoke to me
and stuff it, islamists!
Go look at the masthead. It doesnt say that anymore.
NOT "news for nerds"
NOT "stuff that matters"
Social media cuts both ways. The military took control of State TV (as in all coups), closed the three pro-Morsi TV Stations (arresting some journalists in the process) but could not take both the Twitter and the Facebook official accounts from the reluctant future deposed president.
The next post will contain verbatim of the deposed president probable last communication via an official channel: the "Office of Assistant to President of Egypt on Foreign Relations" Facebook account.
Here is the link to the communicate for those who still have a FB account.
Below is the full text for analysis and comment.
I consider myself a nerd, and I find this news interesting. I support this article being here. If you do not, then please choose not to read that article. If you feel that there are too many such articles for you to enjoy the site, then please find another site.
I'll have you know that many of us are fans of Stargate.
The Egyptian army does seem to be reflecting the will of the Egyptian people in this case. Seems the recent theocracy wasn't actually any good at the nuts and bolts of running a country - and people to expect the government of a fairly modern country to provide basic services. Or at least that's how I interpret the army's statement that a "technocrat, capable national government will be formed" (quoting Al-Jaz).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
yeah thats right baby
You do realize that the protests leading up to this overthrow were the most massive in human history?
The numbers bandied about were anywhere from 20-35 million in the streets. At least 22 million signed a petition denouncing Morsi.
With a population of 82M, that's anywhere from 25-40% of the country's populace. If even 1/10 of that number (much less %) got out on the streets in the USA, there'd be dozens of /. posts as it impacted the largest block of slashdotters on a daily basis.
Furthermore, Egypt is keyholder of the Suez canal. Instability in this country would be like instability in Panama - and impact world trade.
I'd say this is news for nerds.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
why would the armed forces throw themselves out? NSA is a military operation after all in it's roots and your president is the head of the armed forces.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
but it's really not funny.
If I were the Assholes in charge of the US Government, I would be worrying about all that ammo flying off the shelves for the last 7 years or so.
1% of the Taxpayers is not 1% of the population, lol.
I remember when the Constitution was a real Badge of Honor, not something Our Government Wipes its collective Ass on whenever they want.
.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
So this is a rather informal one.
It's a coup, but rather a strange one. The people want Morsi gone, the military is moving against him and then handing off power to the people.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/03/egypt-morsi-protests-army-deadline/2485355/
Here's a summary of the situation from the point of view of one of the protesters.
Why President Morsi is in Trouble:
A youth leader of the June 30th demonstrations gives us an insider's view of why ordinary Egyptians are in revolt.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-president-morsi-is-in-trouble/?singlepage=true
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
he is human and he needs to be loved, just like everybody else does.
Not arguing with the thought, but we don't yet have the faintest idea who is pulling the strings in the apparently successful insurrection against those lately in power.
Question for me is, will they replace it with something more effective? Technocratic benevolent dictatorships are a lot more attractive on paper than they turn out to be in real life.
And if the military intends to (again) establish a democracy, will the people just vote the Muslim Brotherhood back into power? I may not like Morsi but he was the democratically elected leader, with no more than the usual level of shenanigans in the election. (And given the shenanigans that show up in the US, I'm not going to throw too many stones. They're different, in both kind and degree, but we're hardly beyond reproach.)
I don't think this is cause for celebration... Yet.
After all, what is the first thing that the army does after ousting the president? They take down the TV and media that opposes them http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/03/us-egypt-protests-tv-idUSBRE9621A320130703
Like most "revolutions" Egypt is simply trading one tyrant for another, just like what happened back in 2011.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
There were laser pointers.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Too bad it isn't the Citizens of the United States.
The Egyptian army does seem to be reflecting the will of the Egyptian people in this case.
Wag the dog... It's the same bit of manipulation as 'Arab Spring'... The 'will of the people' put Morsi (Mursi?) into office
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What self-respecting nerd isn't interested in international politics?
Or would you prefer to limit us to just "News for Tech Consumers, Matters about Stuff."
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
What a sad, lonely life you must lead.
what the fuck has this got to do with technology?
i'm a nerd and don't give a shit about this and could probably read about somewhere else...if i gave a shit.
if only the u.s. military did the same back when gee-dub was in the white house.
Technocratic benevolent dictatorships are a lot more attractive on paper than they turn out to be in real life.
Nobody but you said anything about "benevolent dictatorship". The Egyption Army is using the phrase "technocratic" as a code word that means "non-Islamic". The current government in Egypt has no actual skills for government, other than "be fanatic Islamicists and use the Quran as the guide for all things", and I personally am dubious as to the value of that one.
And if the military intends to (again) establish a democracy, will the people just vote the Muslim Brotherhood back into power?
No, they won't. The uprising is because the government was a de-facto Islamic theocracy, and the majority of the people don't want that.
I may not like Morsi but he was the democratically elected leader, with no more than the usual level of shenanigans in the election.
The election had two candidates, one who was associated with the repressive Mubarak government, and Morsi. Morsi seemed the lesser danger, and to make himself more attractive he made a bunch of promises: he said "sure I'm the Islamic candidate, but I'll respect the rights of non-Islamic people." Then he broke his promises. Thus, the whole "technocratic" thing: the Army and the people are looking to install a secular government.
So Obama throws Mubarak under the bus so Egypt can have democracy, now he supports a military coup to remove a democratically elected leader by the same military that used to keep Mubarak in power. Way to have a consistent foreign policy, chief.
Really, the only inconsistency was favoring democratically elected officials that don't like us in the first place. Pretty much the sum of all US foreign policy in the post-WW2 era is "find the biggest strongman that will play nice with us and put in charge of the rabble that doesn't." The history of the Middle East and South America during the Cold War is pretty much this story cloned and stamped over and over again.
In this situation, I'm not really sure what the best policy is. As much as I dislike realpolitik and prefer letting democracies elect people who don't like us over the strongman policy, Syria has turned into a huge clusterf--k that is probably about to boil over into a decades-long sectarian Shia-Sunni conflict, and if this will ensure a more stable transition in Egypt, then I guess I'm going to have to grudgingly accept it. If it doesn't, though, I can't even summon up the feeling that I'll be able to say, "I told you so."
I feel absolutely nauseated to consider the notion that letting the military run things may result in more freedom than letting popularly elected President do it, but we've got decades of Turkish politics to weigh in as evidence on that. I just don't know. Maybe once the trolls get sorted out in this thread, we'll get some good discussion from people closer to the ground on this. I guess I'll cross my fingers and hope.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
yeah thats right baby
If a miracle, true miracle happens and Egyptian military decides to go full force against the current (aka overthrown,victimized) government with real courts, not kangroo courts we will likely see the IT/Nerd angle to the issue.
Oracle, IBM, Microsoft. Even some prominent figures from _open source_ (note, I use term on purpose, not free software) may be involved. It is freaking 2013 and you can`t do anything without IT support these days.
Why am I posting as AC, behind VPN in a freaking NATO member secular country may give a clue about the IT angle to it.
The army specifically mentioned they were going to install a "technocratic" government. Beyond "news for nerds" this is also a job listing!
That seems to be the view echoed in this extensive post on CNN by a History professor in Cairo which interesting reading, but probably too long for the average slashdot-er.
TL:DR: he held his nose but hoped for the best when Morsy became President, but simply couldn't stand the "'Brotherhoodization" of the government. The Muslim Brotherhood had systematically replaced every level of government right down to School Principals with unqualified followers.
I'd been watching the stream for hours when cheering an fireworks broke out, and upon looking to Twitter found that the Army had replaced the Muslim Brotherhood leadership with a representative of the Supreme Court. Every military chopper that went overhead was also loudly cheered. Contrary to how CNN is presenting this, it is clearly a popular turn of events.
Egypt may have stepped back from the brink of becoming yet another Islamic Religious Dictatorship.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
seemed the lesser danger, and to make himself more attractive he made a bunch of promises ... Then he broke his promises.
I'm glad we don't tolerate that kind of crap in the good old US of A!
The Egyptian army does seem to be reflecting the will of the Egyptian people in this case.
Wag the dog... It's the same bit of manipulation as 'Arab Spring'... The 'will of the people' put Morsi (Mursi?) into office
There was precious little choice at the time.
They have learned their lesson, and for once it seems the average person in the street has had enough of 'Brotherhoodization" of their democracy.
For an Islamic majority country to take this step is a pretty positive note if you ask me.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Basically detest islam in the majority of its forms. But having looked at Egypt for a while, the level of abuse on women, organised or social rape, the deliberate and appalling levels of enforced FGM, and coming to a conclusion that as a people in a general sense, I feel only sorry for the victims, but generally regard most with a deep disdain.
As an aside, this looks to me to have civil war written all over it. But before that, an observation of my own on this. I have zero belief that Islam can fit into modern society. Into democracy. In secularism or into multiculturalism. I don't believe it deserves a seat at the table, nor do I think they actually want a seat unless it comes with all the usual preconditions and appalling islamic fundamentalism.
However, if a person like me - has a theory that I demand or expect islamics to adhere to modern standards, and to put aside some of their normal activities and behaviour and to fall into line and operate on a civil basis in society, take part in democracy, campaign for what they believe and if they can do so in the civil way, perhaps get a deserved place at the table of government - then things in Egypt don't provide any good news. And under normal circumstances I'd welcome the Muslim Brotherhood getting chewed up and spat out. But I can't have it both ways, even with my somewhat harsh line of thought. If they do put down the guns, and do put aside the bombs, and come to play a full part in the democratic processes, then what?
So, the context now is that they win an election (debate that as you see fit), and a number of months later, find the US supported and equipped Army deposes their chosen man and suspends the entire constitution. An awkward pause for me now occurs. If they get excluded and sidelined in this way, it seems to me that this is fuel in the tank for bad stuff. What is the point of elections now to Morsi and this brotherhood. Democracy by its nature has to be inclusive, even to forces or views I dislike. Thats almost the point.
In this instance, I find myself having a tiny amount of sympathy to bad people, whom I normally don't have any sympathy with, as there is an air of injustice and incorrectness about this. I detest Islam and its fundamentalism, BUT, if they put their guns and arms down and come to the table - something I may not like, but may well respect - then their part in it can't be cut off like this - at least thats a vague feeling I have. But I know that the Muslim Brotherhood are scum, and I know only idiots would vote for them. Bingo - look what happened. Idiots and then the MB got elected.
In the end tho, Its Egypt. Its a state where this is the picture across its society.
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/unkindest-cut-13yearolds-death-shines-spotlight-on-rise-of-fgm-in-egypt-8657104.html
There is no escape. The men are involved. The women. The mothers. There are no innocents in this appalling crime against humanity, and against women in particular. And against the young girls, often under age, who are forcably held down and have their sexual organs butchered in full 7th century barbarism. The fact that the women are often involved in the infliction of this crime only erodes all respect. Despicable, and beyond contempt. It doesn't matter who gets into Government over such people. Its very hard for me to find sympathy for these fucking people. Their behaviour is worse than animals. Their choice of 'leadership' is a reflection of the people as a whole. Normally it is said that to correct fundamental problems - in a society, the advancement of women is critical. I have no problem with that, ... but these women.. there is a black hole here where an education and care for their own siblings should be.
The calls for 'freedom' or 'democracy' really become meaningless. Human rights? Yeah - as if anyone a citizen of such a place t
We`re all equal
No, they won't. The uprising is because the government was a de-facto Islamic theocracy, and the majority of the people don't want that.
Measuring "will of the people" by "how big is today's mob" is a poor substitute for the ballot box. Having a military that allows the people to control things only to the extent that the military likes what is going on is a poor substitute for rule of law.
Morsi seemed the lesser danger, and to make himself more attractive he made a bunch of promises: he said "sure I'm the Islamic candidate, but I'll respect the rights of non-Islamic people." Then he broke his promises.
Oh, well, never mind then. He broke campaign promises. This is clearly sufficient grounds to have a military coup, and it has never happened in any political system prior to this. Maybe Morsi can be sent to some nice prison somewhere, like the one at Gitmo. Which apparently was closed five years ago, according to my government source. Who certainly would never lie about such a thing.
And if the military intends to (again) establish a democracy, will the people just vote the Muslim Brotherhood back into power?
The support for the Muslim Brotherhood dwindled as soon as they were in power and actually acted. That's when people saw that they were not as awesome as they thought. And the Muslim Brotherhood learned they are actually being held accountable for their governing.
I may not like Morsi but he was the democratically elected leader, with no more than the usual level of shenanigans in the election. (And given the shenanigans that show up in the US, I'm not going to throw too many stones. They're different, in both kind and degree, but we're hardly beyond reproach.)
Yes, you don't just overthrow a elected government by a coup just because you disagree with them. But if there is wide-spread violence from both sides, over a longer period of time, and you exhaust all other options including a ultimatum, it is the job of the army to step in and prevent a civil war.
A new election will be held. Egypt is new at this. Give them some time. The dedication of the Egyptian people is exemplary, they want a better state for themselves. It's a historic chance, but it is a process.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
if only the u.s. military did the same back when gee-dub was in the white house.
How about: no.
Unlike Egypt, the USA has an impeachment process. If we ever really need to get rid of a President, I hope and pray that we will do it by impeachment and not by a coup or civil war.
Let's not forget that after getting Democratically elected the government did a little 180, changed the constitution to Islamic spew of hate and shut down majority of judicial oversight. There wouldn't be another democratic elections, in example.
So yeah, strangely enough, a year after having lost to protests Egyptian army seem to be stepping up as the good guys. We'll see how it goes.
The Constitution was overwhelming approved in a referendum. What are you talking about?
How about: yes.
You think it would be possible to impeach our almighty benevolent leader at this point? You think it would be possible to organize the people in massive protests against our almighty benevolent leader? Or do you think our almighty benevolent leader will make use of social networking "metadata" to make sure key "disagreers" are not heard from long before they organize into a coherent group?
I had Morsi out by July 4th...
Let's see Nasr, then Sadat then Mubarak ... Who's in charge of the Army now because IMO he'll be the next leader of Egypt.
Seriously, Morsi reminded me of this guy.
Warning: The above link is to a clip of a Woody Allen movie, when he was funny not that Annie Hall shit!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
It is a secular document that embodies principles of government conceived by men of sublime genius on the heels of five hundred years of medieval religious terror. It embodies advanced philosophical principles of governance drawn carefully and thoughtfully from the ancients, the 'noble savages' as well as from new philosophies from the age of enlightenment itself (Rousseau). (We are still far from realizing its potential, but it DOES protect us. Mostly.)
The Ottoman Empire never experienced this critical cultural shift. Egypt was a part of it and locked in the middle age darkness until the 20th century. Secular Ba'athism was a half step forward, but it went out with Mubarak. The Army, ever the guardians of Ba'athist ideals, thought the time might be right for pluralism as a way to enter fully into the family of nations... and they hated Mubarak. They let the popular kettle boil, rolled the dice and came up with... Morsi. Feh! The "constitution" that Morsi rammed down the country's throat was an atavistic abomination that drew upon medieval juridical traditions that were outmoded by the 13th century. And which the Ba'athists hate with a passion. (Almost as much as the Jihadis hate the Ba'athists.) Witness that at long last, a hundred years after the last Sultan fell off the Sunni throne, that the former nations of the Ottomans are waking up. Morsi took a democratic ladder to the heights of power then clumsily pulled it up behind him and spat on those below. He now pays the price for his perfidy. The Army, essentially Ba'athist secularists and anathema to the jihadists, want a modern country. Had Morsi been as capable and cautious as Erdogan in Turkey it would have been a different story. But now he is toast. He was always there at their sufferance. They will hold new elections in a year or two and settle back to their barracks. But just as the Turkish army has been staunching the tide of medievalism for almost the last hundred years, so will the Egyptian Army continue to watch.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
But, oddly enough the tab still says "Slashdot: News for Nerds" just before it changes to "Slashdot (15)"
Some kind of style sheet Band-aid to cover the tagline? Maybe the TV channel will be filled with reality shows soon :O
They have learned their lesson, and for once it seems the average person in the street has had enough of 'Brotherhoodization" of their democracy.
In all likelihood, they've traded it for the militarization of the democracy. A stooge of the military powers will win the next 'election.'
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I was meaning that the people that control the egypt army is the same that control the president and the armed forces of USA. But could be another foreign control group.
It would seem that the Army and the Courts are the only things acting in Egypt's best interest. They threw out Mubarak and they are throwing out this Usurper as well.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Sisi, head of the Egyptian armed forces, said in a televised announcement that Morsi had been removed from power, the Constitution had been suspended, and Adli al-Mansour, leader of Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court, had been appointed to lead the country until elections can be held.
I never thought he'd have the guts to do it. But clearly he's no believer in nominative determinism.
Quick Q. Why are you defending a leader that by all accounts was bad at his job, and lied to get elected. Yes he "won" the election but his opponent was a puppet of the last regime. The turn out was only 33%. That means 2/3rds of the people did not like their choices. It sounds like the people already spoke once by boycotting the election.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Back to /. Please! If I want global news then I'll link to CNN. Nerd news please!
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Terrible TERRIBLE choices all 'round. Unfortunately (and sadly for everyone concerned) the USA and Israel probably want military dictatorship... corruption works best if rulers stay in power forever... democracy is too messy. People thought they were making a democratic choice, BUT if a choice is between or theocratic ruler it is really a choice between military dictatorship or theocracy for all time. People don't see it until the election is done and the theocracy exercises power. It worked this way in Algeria... the military must, MUST I TELL YOU *sigh* takes control, or a theocracy will take power for all time. It is for the good of the country *coughs*. I guess there is a chance things could work out well and the military will let go, but I'm not hopeful.
The support for the Muslim Brotherhood dwindled as soon as they were in power
Did it? The Muslim Brotherhood didn't win either a majority or a plurality in the last election. The Salfists got the most votes by supporting a more extreme islamist view. Morsi was actually a moderate compromise president. The protests against him were largely confined to urban areas, which didn't vote for him in the first place. There were large pro-Morsi protests in rural areas and second-tier cities.
I am pessimistic that there is going to be a peaceful outcome to all of this. The Salfists were barely willing to allow Morsi to rule, because of his moderate (in their view) policies. The secularists and minorities such as the Copts, are never going to accept Sharia being rammed down their throats. So where is the middle ground?
Morsi was no less oppressive than the man the people had just rioted to throw out of office AND he was less capable of actually governing. The military that ran this coup (and it was a coup) is run by men that Morsi appointed to run it. He forced the resignation (and in some cases, prosecuted and jailed) those military leaders who he felt were insufficiently supportive of his agenda.
Please understand that I do not think a military dictatorship is a good thing. It's just that, in the case of Egypt at the present time, it appears to be better than the alternative (key word being "appears").
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
A stooge of the military powers will win the next 'election.'
Military power rules everywhere in the region (hell, the world). It's the financiers who tell them where to point the gun.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sorry, I stopped concentrating after "men of sublime genius". But grats - I'm sure that's a lovely piece of old paper you have there.
"The secularists and minorities such as the Copts, are never going to accept Sharia being rammed down their throats. So where is the middle ground?"
Sometimes one must open the flood gates to allow the water level to lower to something that wont break/overflow the dam. Maybe the need a "bloody" revolution. I hope they don't, but they just might.
My wife (a Syrian Christian) says that people respect STRENGTH, not compromise over there. A willingness to compromise is seen as weakness. They are less concerned that someone gets picked up and torched by the Government than being able to buy food and walk the streets safely.
As an American, these are alien concepts for me. Our Constitution is a compromise document (3/5ths of a person?). Our strength has traditionally come from our willingness to compromise. Our sense of safety comes from the checks/balances in our system that should PREVENT our government from whisking me away.
Quick Q. Why are you defending a leader...
I'm not defending anyone. I'm pointing out that counting noses in a mob isn't a good way to determine "will of the people", and that "breaking campaign promises" isn't sufficient to justify a coup.
That means 2/3rds of the people did not like their choices.
No, that means that 2/3rds of the people didn't vote. If they didn't vote they had no say in the result and no right to complain that it didn't wind up they way they wanted.
It sounds like the people already spoke once by boycotting the election.
Or they didn't vote for any of a thousand other reasons, just like people in the US sometimes don't vote for any number of reasons. The last election held in my area had a whopping 22% turnout. We could claim that means that 78% of the people didn't like any of the selections on the ballot and everyone and everything loses and another election has to be held, or we could admit that they just didn't care enough to vote and those who did care got to make the choices, which is much closer to the truth.
The army is acting in their own interest, make no mistake.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Step 1) Spy on your citizens ....
Step 2)
Step 3) Profit!
Not really applicable as that whole meme was about "not having a plan". I know most people likened Step 1 to the novel "1984". However, when you consider what allows us to go to Step #3, it's closer to "Brave New World". People are too comfortable, too entertained, too whatever to care. No one riots because they have jobs, no one cut their cable tv and, hey, look at that Zimmerman thing, that's big news all that "racial" stuff, right? Step 2 is a thriving economy with multiple distractions and an ADD public. It's the difference between the US and Egypt.
Are people forgetting it took the US two tries to get it right? The articles of confederation weren't suspended by the military, even less effort was needed: they were simply ignored by all the states.
and that "breaking campaign promises" isn't sufficient to justify a coup.
He made a power grab. Created a constitutional declaration that gave himself unprecedented powers. That's a touch more egregious than "breaking campaign promises".
It had to be nipped in the bud before he made himself and the Muslim Brotherhood unassailable, which is what he was obviously doing. If he'd been a touch more subtle and patient about things it might have worked.
For me, concern for democracy would be better placed in the spirit of it than the letter, especially with a dodgy leader with a dodgy mandate making a dodgy power grab.
Well done the Egyptians I say. I hope they get the effective secular government that they've worked and sacrificed for.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
People throwing away a dictator with the support of army, then People calling for army to get away. Elected president standing against the general will thrown away by army... The path to democracy is not straightforward, and it can take a long time before it settles. For instance, between France first revolution in 1789, and the stable 3rd republic, there had been 90 years of various regimes and revolutions, switching several times between republic, monarchy (absolute or constitutional), and even two so called emperors.
Their interests appear to coincide with the Egyptian people. Sounds like you know better (of course you do).
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Egypt may have stepped back from the brink of becoming yet another Islamic Religious Dictatorship.
That's the impression I get. It's good to see and I'm pleased for them - let's hope they get a decent secular option to vote for.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Women aren't required to wear veils, honor killing are less common in Egypt than they are in Italy, women can drive (and work outside the home and vote and hold elected office), the men in Egypt are no more likely to advocate genocide than a pigfucker like yourself is, and Egyptian Coptic Christians face about the same level of persecution as American Muslims.
Any other racist canards you'd like to drag out?
Yeah. Probably some kind of reptiles, I am right? ;)
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
the whole world is dumber because you posted that
That seems a pretty gross exaggeration of public sentiment in Egypt, the problem, at its core, is that Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood cohorts won the slimmest of majorities (just over 51%), and instead of recognizing the somewhat tenuous situation they were in and moderating their activities, they basically went all out to seize control of the constitution, various local governments and the judiciary, with the clear intent of assuring a narrow islamist form of Shariah was the law of the land.
To many of the 2012 protesters, reformers, and most importantly there Egyptian Army, this was directly opposed to what they had intended. Many feared, and not entirely without justification that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were going to take a page from Ayatollah Khomeini's play book and use the reformist zeal to put in place a strongly theocratic and autocratic government.
I'll say this about it, when something like a third of any nation's populace signs a petition demanding the government reign, I would suggest to that government that it shelve more controversial policies and try to find a new accommodation with the oppositon., or one way or the other shit will hit the fan.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Sounds like the last two presidents we have had. So when is Coup start in the USA?
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
No doubt I do.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You are right, but there was no legal mechanism to force the ballot box in the time span it appeared to be needed so this happen to create one. I do not support military coups but I do believe this action stopped Egypt from becoming a Syria.
As for Egypt's military- I am more then impressed with them. In the last uprising, they positioned themselves between the government supporters with firearms and the protesters with sticks, stones, and signs. They stopped a lot of senseless bloodshed from happening and stopped the situation from entering a Syria type rebellion. The situation has rose to the top again and the Egyptian military is once again, fighting strongly to save lives. You may not agree with them, but For what it's worth, I salute them.
And a good read. Thank you.
No it wouldn't have worked. Look at the economy. The reason they are having power cuts is because the country is just about out of money. When Mubark was overthrown, Egypt had 30 billion in foreign reserves. Those are dropping steadily, in one year they've been cut it in half AND at the same time they've reduced wheat stockpiles 3/4 and are at the point of begging Oman for fuel.
The wheat harvest should total out a couple percent higher than last year but it won't come close to meeting the needs of the subsidized bread the poor are dependent on. They'll burn through the remaining money in a matter of months buying wheat to meet those subsidies.
Without the subsidized bread (sold for about 0.08 cents) several million people will starve to death. People starving to death are generally very disruptive to society. During the last Egyptian bread riots they nearly ended up in a civil war.
To compound the matter tourism is dead, it was Egypts only serious generator of foreign cash and the Islamists destroyed it in short order. Hell Morisi appointed an Islamist that leads an organization that killed several dozen tourists to be the governor of the area where tourism is the biggest. The incompetence of the administration boggles the mind.
If something isn't done right now the country is going to disintegrate into some of the worst violence the country has ever seen due to the intersection of several major issues (bread, currency, fuel, etc). The problem is the Muslim Brotherhood is more interested in doing things to cement their own rule and institute their own moral view than to stabilize the country. It's unfortunate but if the Army didn't step in now it would end far worse than it will by forcing the Islamists out (and the resulting damage that will do, they comprise better than 1/5th of the population). It's a bad situation and the smart Egyptians with means are getting out of the country while they can.
So he was the lesser of two evils, that is every democratic election. No one with any common sense or integrity would ever run for office in any country.
So what, they will have another democratic election and magically there will be better choices this time around, and the people will make a better choice, or the military will just rebel again.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
It had the benefit not only from things like the enlightenment, but the men who wrote it had a very particular perspective and background; They were, as a group, generally Protestant Christian (of various degrees of religiosity and various different denominations) which meant that they all shared a common view of basic principles of "right" and "wrong" BUT also a healthy suspicion of government forcing its views onto the individual (the English King and the Church of England had suppressed nearly all of their religious denominations). Others of other beliefs could have been added to that group and might have shared some of those views about the imperfections of man, but the group that was their and did draft the document were sufficiently aligned in their views that many argument that might have otherwise occurred did not and they all were pulling in a similar direction on all the important parts (generally agreeing on the goals and wrestling mainly with the "hows") Further, and most-importantly, they all held the protestant view that all humans are imperfect, and capable of being tempted to do bad things.... which led to all the checks and balances they insisted on having. They had the belief that, even if you chose the very best man, and made him president he would be tempted by power and might do the wrong thing. They were concerned that the public (who would elect the congress directly at two year intervals) might be tempted by the passions of the moment to do bad things... so they provided a senate (with time-consuming parliamentary procedures, elected at 6 year intervals by state legislators) to slow-things down and cool them off. They were concerned that the senators could become too beholden to political forces in state legislatures and forget the fiscal impacts on the people, so they required all taxing and spending bills to originate in the House. They worried that an executive might be too eager to wage war, so they put the power to declare war in the Congress. They worried that the elected people of the Congress and in the executive might ignore the Constitutional limits imposed upon them, so they made the Supreme court the referee... but fearing a tyrannical court they made a presidential appointment and a senate confirmation as gates though which a supreme court member had to pass
The entire US Constitution sits atop one very basic Protestant idea: Man is a sinner, and even a "good man" will sometimes still sin (Protestants have no pope... I point this out NOT as an anti-Catholic point but rather because it is an oft overlooked evidence of that protestant world view. Some Protestants will rally around a particular preacher from time to time for various reasons, but they always know he could fail them and many Protestants are wary of any leader who becomes too popular).
The people of Egypt will hopefully end-up with a good constitution and do not need a bunch of Early American Protestants to come and write it for them... but it may be a longer and even more difficult struggle than the Americans had (a longer tougher struggle than most remember) because the people they have to perform the task are less-unified than our founders were, and some of the elements of their society are much more willing to trust an individual leader (like the Brotherhood trusting Morsi no matter what he did). The people of Egypt need not use any elements of the US Constitution, but they would be wise to borrow its underpinning ideas of (1) not placing too much power in the hands of any person or group and (2) providing the minority with legislative AND judicial means to gum-up-the-works and slow the hands of the majority or even stop the majority (NOT democratic, but NEEDED in a diverse nation)
If even 1/10 of that number (much less %) got out on the streets in the USA, there'd be dozens of /. posts as it impacted the largest block of slashdotters on a daily basis.
Hell, SOPA was killed by people raging on Twitter. U.S. elected officials would change their religion if people actually took to the streets in droves.
We also have a longer track record for being able to vote for who we want next election cycle than they do in Egypt. If we vote for some guy who says he's not going to spy on us, and he does, we say "Well, I'm not voting for him next time!" not "I'm going to support a military coup!" Because we know there WILL be a next election. Egyptian citizens on the other hand have much less reason to trust that their government won't say "Gee, we WERE going to hold elections as promised, but there's... uh... TERRORISTS that we have to deal with first." Or various other ways to prevent democracy.
This is not to say democracy in the US is perfect, just that voters have more faith in the process than they do in overriding the process, while Egyptians have more of a reason to trust protests and overthrowing the government than elections.
I hope our military and the majority that oppose the idiot obama will oust him from office and then use his own NDAA act to imprison him indefinitely and without a trial in a prison full of gays that will sodomize obama the way he has been sodomizing this country.
This means only that government of USA is a much better player of the "say what they want to hear, do what you want to do" game. Yes, you can vote out the President you consider a liar (although Bush and Obama were happily reelected, so most of the people seem to think that they were honest enough), but that only guarantees that the next guy will break a slightly different set of promises. Being politely voted out of the White House is not the same as being thrown out by the military. Gives no incentive for the next guy to hold onto his words.
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
So Israel encourages neighbors countries to become more islamic... why exactly? So they have more enemies? Iran is not enough, they get a little bored with Palestine sending them rockets?
I hope our military and the majority that oppose the idiot obama will oust him from office and then use his own NDAA act to imprison him indefinitely and without a trial in a prison full of gays that will sodomize obama the way he has been sodomizing this great country.
Being politely voted out of the White House is not the same as being thrown out by the military. Gives no incentive for the next guy to hold onto his words.
As Seneca the Younger said: "Ius est in armis, opprimit leges timor" (Might is right, fear oppresses laws). This applies mostly to those who consider themselves rulers.
Or, according to Lucius Accius: "Oderint, dum metuant" (Let them hate, as long as they fear). This applies mostly to those who are ruled.
Ancient wisdoms which still apply, whether you're referring to Egypt or the USA, or just about anywhere.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
You are comparing an election in a stable first-world country to the first election after a de facto dictator was ousted. You might want to re-think the comparison, as it's making you look rather short-sighted.
[Darn - I hit submit instead of edit]
The US constitution was a brave experiment in bypassing these tenets. It has been gravely devalued by both POTUS and SCOTUS, especially in recent years.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Unless you can see into the future, you don't. I'm sure you believe you know it all, but only a fool would trust their beliefs in such circumstances.
Furthermore, the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has a *significant* impact in the progress of their 'Cultural Jihad' that is sweeping across America as we speak (where they do a Jedi mind trick on the weak minded to lower resistance to Islamicization and Cultural Marxism):
http://www.muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
ps. Obama and the Leftists Democratic leadership clearly have a marriage of convenience with the Muslim Brotherhood to break down the traditional (that is, 'classical liberal'/conservative/libertarian) position of American society. The fall of Morsi in Egypt is a great day for the Free World - even if most people don't know it or understand what is really going on (because many politicians and most media are keeping the truth from them):
http://frontpagemag.com/
I don't see the future, I don't know everything, but I am certain I know more than you lol. You should investigate the army's actions more deeply.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's one of the more impressive tells; there is a general will to avoid violence, rather than other places where it seems there's no shortage of people eager for a fight. The MB may have just underestimated the collective intelligence of Egypt's people, or just failed to recognise it altogether. The people don't seem to want an "I win, you lose" mode of problem solving. They seem to have managed the largest fairly peaceful demonstration in history, got a result, and seem in a way comfortable with a bit of creative but peaceful chaos. That's maybe more essential to democracy than ballot boxes.
If you think that sounds like the US, you might want to think about reading from a wider range of sources since that is nonsense.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
No, that means that 2/3rds of the people didn't vote. If they didn't vote they had no say in the result and no right to complain that it didn't wind up they way they wanted.
That is such a horrible view, made by an idealist rather than a realist.
When both choices are unacceptable, the only logical choice is to not vote.
Voting in someone you don't want in power, is explicitly giving your endorsement.
And "no right to complain".
Everyone has a right to complain and free speach, thats one of the best ways to get thing improved. Enforcing censorship against those who are dissatisfied with the elections is tyranny.
Ultimately the best thing for a democracy is a politically active and informed population.
A "Put up or shut up" attitude to poorly run elections is just immature and counter productive to a healthy democracy.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
He was narrowly democratically elected and ruled like a dictator. Egypt lacked checks and balances which protected minority interests. I'd say he was a majoritarian not a democrat.
Morsi didn't like the rule of law either. He undermined the court system because it came from the old regime. More importantly there is no rule of law if 45-48% hates the laws.
I'd love to see someone step in and force our president and congress to be more democratic. I think Obama is a really great president. I don't think we need a coup and no one has asked for one. That being said if the military came and and put an end an end to corporate oligarchy, secret laws, secret interpretations of the law, the security state, the unwillingness to work effectually with congress (horse trade)... I could see it being rather popular.
No when both choices are unaccepted the logical choice is to carefully balance and find the lesser of evils. If I have two candidates that on a scale from 1-10 are a 2 and 3 respectively, I'd rather have the 3 than the 2. That doesn't mean I like the 3.
"Egypt may have stepped back from the brink of becoming yet another Islamic Religious Dictatorship."
Admirably, they almost allowed that dictatorship to succeed. I know, that sounds an odd statement, but hear me out.
Egypt demanded a democracy, and believed in it so much that were willing to give anyone that won the election a fair shot at leading the country, including the Brotherhood. They may not have liked who they ended up with, but they were sure as hell going to try and give the elected their own shot at doing the right thing, right up to the point that it was painfully obvious that the Brotherhood was taking them for a ride.
Egypt has acted admirably, the elected not so much. It is refreshing to see a country take democracy seriously. It's been a while.
No arguing here. Might (and fear of might) are trumping freedoms on the daily basis, although between citizen's fears and government's fears I think first is much stronger. And, paradoxically, in the "more civilized" countries governments fears (actions of) their citizens less than in "less civilized" ones. Take Turkey, for example, where government recently backed down somewhat after continuous protests. Then take USA or Russia, where all of the recent "public outrage" has absolutely no effect on the actions of respective governments.
BTW, your sig explains much of this nicely - modern "progressive" governments utilize much more effective propaganda and "sleight-of-hand" techniques than less "progressive" ones, being not so different in their core.
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
The election was rather narrow. It is entirely possible that a few percentage points of the population has shifted to the coalition government. Which means the NSF: leftists, Nasrists, socialists, communists, Christians, liberals has the majority to govern.
What does this have to do with Israel? Why would you even bring them up? Maybe Finland wants a military dictatorship. I here Thailand is backing a return to monarchy. Niger is pushing for the states to dissolve and Federalism to emerge.
What's happening in Egypt is about Egypt. Israel has nothing to do with it. And if Israel wants anything they want a government that is more friendly and has legitimacy. A government with lots of Copts. A government that is openly pro-USA.... They have reason to want a military dictatorship that has to fuel their legitimacy by feeding anti-Semetic nonsense like bring Israel up in situations where it has no involvement.
This isn't that unusual of a situation where you have cities and rural areas disagreeing on social policy. Social polices are local determined at the county level. What is legal in the cities is illegal in the rural areas. Enforcement is handled locally. There is a strong division of power. Problem solved.
What's so bad about that? The military is well respected and broad in its support for and by the Egyptian people. They are technocratic. They have a good and responsible policy. They are used to compromise.
I'm hard pressed to see how the military isn't a positive influence on the NSF.
Without the subsidized bread (sold for about 0.08 cents) several million people will starve to death.
You are stating that people in Egypt can buy 100/0.08=1250 loaves of bread for one dollar. No wonder their cash reserves are dwindling. Is there any chance that it's actually 8 cents and that you work for Verizon?
Actually if you went and looked into this you would see that it was starting to look like there would be no other elections. There were power grabs, he was replacing all government officials with people with no experience, all the way down to the level of school principals.
Go read into this some, it sounds to me like they just barely avoided the country being turned into another Islamic dictatorship. All I have to say is GOOD! Good for them!
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
If the neighborhood bully tells you there is a choice between him making you eat dirt, and dog poop. Sure you might vote for the dirt, but that doesn't really make it your choice. IF you have an opportunity to kick that bully in the balls and go get an ice cream cone instead, I say good for you.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Around the time of the first crusade, there was may be 100 million people living in the territory between Portugal and Persia. "Hudreds of millions" would mean most of the human population around the entire planet was exterminated. Exaggeration on this order is important because it is not a minor twisting of the truth, but an outright lie when presented to gullable people who have little concept of history.
Another thing, did you know that the state of Texas executes as many people per year as the Spanish Inquisition did per year? You'd never know that from the propaganda about the Inquisition. You'd also never know that a) it explicitly had by royal decree no jurisdiction over avowed Jews and Muslims, b) it had the highest standards of conduct for any royal court of law in continental Europe in the land and c) it spent much of its time processing out secular criminals that pretended to be "conversos" (Jews and Muslims pretending to be Catholics) in order to get into its jurisdiction because secular courts were far more inhumane. Oh and it was run by the Spanish secular state and was only created when the King of Spain threatened to withdraw his troops from Italy if the Pope didn't give him an Inquisition under his royal authority. That is to say... the Roman Catholic Church as a matter of public record opposed the institution of the Spanish Inquisition until the Pope was forced to face the political prospects of fractured Italy facing the Ottoman army alone.
*reads the wiki page on technocracy*
O.O
Holy mother of jebus I want one.
Where can I buy one of those?
Can I borrow the Egyptian army this weekend plz?
"advocates the supremacy of technical experts'. Scientists, engineers, and technologists who have knowledge, expertise, or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businesspeople, and economists."
I have government wood.
The constitutional convention was called in order to draft updates to the Articles of Confederation because the existing government didn't work. In fact, many elected officials in it didn't even bother showing up for office because it was so weak and pointless. What they discovered was that it was probably a better idea to simply draft a new constitution altogether than try to piecemeal the thing into a working form of government.
Now why was it done in secret? Because the founding fathers feared that Britain or one of the continental powers would exploit the situation if they discovered that the states were so discontented with the strength of their national government that they were preparing major revisions. They feared that perceived weakness could cause a second war after the states were financially exhausted from the first one.
And as to why it was done without popular approval, it was done effectively as a form of a treaty between the states. There was nothing stopping the people from ousting their legislature and voting to rescind membership in the federation. In fact, the people of the New England states did almost precisely that during Thomas Jefferson's presidency over the way his neutrality acts crippled their economy. The US was a voluntary union of states until the Civil War. Right or wrong, the Civil War removed the legal right of a state to rescind membership, though this was done by the threat of raw military power being exercised extralegally.
So in fact, they are quite different situations as until around 1860 any state wishing to leave peacefully had the freedom to rescind membership in the Union.
[Morsi] is human and he needs to be loved, just like everybody else does.
I see what you did there... (^_^)
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
That seems a pretty gross exaggeration of public sentiment in Egypt, the problem, at its core, is that Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood cohorts won the slimmest of majorities (just over 51%)
No party has got 50% of the vote in the UK for more than half a century, IIRC. The same is true for many European democracies.
I'm not defending anyone. I'm pointing out that counting noses in a mob isn't a good way to determine "will of the people", and that "breaking campaign promises" isn't sufficient to justify a coup.
Maybe it should be. Imagine a world where politicians were held to their word.
That means 2/3rds of the people did not like their choices.
No, that means that 2/3rds of the people didn't vote. If they didn't vote they had no say in the result and no right to complain that it didn't wind up they way they wanted.
Why don't people have a right to complain if it didn't end up the way they wanted? People always have a right to complain. That has to be our most basic human right!
More to the point, it wasn't Islamic Law, Sharia. He would be perfectly fine with Sharia law where Allah gets to make the rules and the rulers get to interpret what they mean. Hence there is no notion of individual rights, such as freedom of religion, freedom from religion, freedom to say that the current ruler is pig-dog who frolicks in pig dung on his days off because while the two former could weaseled around, the last would be an affront to Allah's representative on this planet.
King Abdullah of Jordan had Morsi's number, Morsi has no depth.
Aliens!!! I just knew they were behind this, controlling events. In your little screwed up world view, does common sense have a role?
What's the problem with a military dictatorship?
Lots of problems, look at history; but to get an idea, consider that the military has been shutting down news outlets that are perceived to be 'pro-Morsi.'
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They are in the midst of establishing martial law. Of course they are shutting down news outlets right now. In a few weeks they likely will restore those news outlets and my guess is the pro-Morsi outlets will not be subject to anywhere near the level of intimidation that anti-Morsi outlets were during his rein.
Nobody is discussing a military dictatorship. Everyone on all sides is talking about a new democratic form of government with the military playing an interim role. My comment is I think the military are a good influence on the NSF, a democratic political coalition of popularly elected parties and public interest groups.
Nobody is discussing a military dictatorship.
Of course, the news outlets that might reveal such things have all been shut down. There were a lot of people worried about such things back during the time of the presidential election, if you remember. That's partly why Morsi won.
At the current moment, you're probably right, the military in control is almost certainly better than Morsi. But countries that grant too much power to the military are in for trouble, and probably sooner rather than later........
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'm not saying Egypt isn't in trouble. I think there are some huge problems with the NSF. On the other hand having a partnership between a military and a political system is how most countries are governed. The NSF reflects the military's interests which allows SCAF to yield to them in a way they couldn't with an Islamist government. That might lead to more civilian control not less.
Facebook, twitter... and good quality papers are working fine. What's shut down are systems of mass organizing the poor. No one is shutting down systems for getting information out down. The military is imposing minimal censorship.
With all due respect, if you study Islam, Quran and the teachings of Muhammad are the laws that are supposed to be followed by an Islamic government. Just expressing your doubt in its value without any knowledge of it does not make any sense.
On the other hand having a partnership between a military and a political system is how most countries are governed.
No, this is a horrible way to govern a country. I see why you are confused now. Standard modern democracies have provisions to make the military subordinate to the democratically elected government, because otherwise bad things happen. The classic example is Rome, with Julius crossing the Rubicon, etc.
If you are interested in learning more political theory surrounded this point, you can search for "Separation of powers," "Checks and balances," and "civilian control of the military."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Certainly Nasser was a Ba'athist and a pan Arabist. But I think it is fair to say that the brand of Arab-centric nationalism espoused by him and his two successors, and which remains so anathema to the medievalists, was mainly Ba'athist in spirit if not in name. I would also argue that today the lines between the Egyptian Army and the state are quite blurred, pliable interim president from the Judiciary notwithstanding. And have been for some time. But of course strictly speaking you are right. And I was using the Ba'athist label very loosely indeed. Certainly the Egyptians do not label themselves as such. I should know better than to play fast and loose around here. Busted.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Given you don't even know these various terms like SCAF and NSF you might want to check the arrogance a bit. I'm not confused. I understand what democracies have. You might want to look a bit into how they got it.
I don't think you understand the seriousness of the mistake you made. Having the military subordinate to the civilian is crucial. It is in no way a partnership. Making a system like that will only cause grief.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The current topic though would directly seem to counter your argument. Mubarak, the last guy was run out of office via force, yet the very next guy did the same thing. Being voted out or thrown out by force, there are no guarantees. At least elections are cleaner and easier.
Ha, a military coup is now "taking democracy seriously". Next stage will be the effort to kill the military leadership which we'll call "politics", and a terror campaign against civil institutions, aka "law and order"
Tahrir square might be having the best Independence Day party anywhere. You can see the livestream here. http://reuters.livestation.com/demo
It was more than just broken promises. There was a breach of contract. Before the election, to gain the support of various progressive political groups, Morsi signed a document promising to appoint 3 Vice Presidents - one woman, one Christian, and one representative of a revolutionary youth movement. Then he didn't.
An election also creates a contract - not a blank check. If the elected official reneges, it is lawful and just to repeal the benefits granted by the contract to that elected official. Morsi had an armed mob (ie the Muslim Brotherhood) and the intention to take those benefits by force (ie remain the President).
It would normally be the job of the police to resolve such criminal behavior, but they were probably outgunned by the armed mob occupying the Executive branch. So the Army got involved to maintain the rule of law.
I believe every constitution is OBSOLETE in globalization.
Casteism
You think it would be possible to impeach our almighty benevolent leader at this point?
At no point in his first or current term has it been possible to impeach Obama, because the Democrats have enough power to spike the proceedings. And no matter how bad his crimes might be, they will do it. We could find out that Obama is an actual spy for the Chinese and that he murders kittens for fun, and the Democrats still would say he is misunderstood or something; the news media would say it's all a lie from a vast right-wing conspiracy and anyone voting for impeachment is a racist; and really nobody wants to be the guy who impeached the first black President.
do you think our almighty benevolent leader will make use of social networking "metadata" to make sure key "disagreers" are not heard from long before they organize into a coherent group?
Why do you need to spin a fanciful scenario, when it is proven fact that the IRS smashed Tea Party political groups before they could get formed? Democrat-aligned political groups got instant approval of full tax-free status, while no Tea Party groups got any approval for over two years. Once the story started to get out, some approvals started to happen, but the election was over by then.
Obama was re-elected by a small enough margin that the IRS sabotage of Tea Party groups may have saved the day for him. He really is President Asterisk.
But there is an old joke, that goes like this: "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to really change things at the ballot box, but still too early for armed rebellion." Despite my firm conviction that Obama is not competent to hold his office, is not honest, and is actively bad for the country... despite all that, I do not support extra-legal ways of getting him out of the office. If we can't impeach him, which we can't, we will just have to suffer another three years.
And I dearly hope that the IRS scandal, and the Benghazi scandal, and the NSA metadata scandal, and all the other scandals we know about or don't know about yet but will surely come out... all the scandals will actually start sticking to Obama and sandbag his further efforts as President. May he finish his term as the lamest of lame ducks, watching helplessly as Obamacare is repealed or gutted, and unable to advance his agenda in any way.
He made a power grab.
You seem to think I am defending someone. Stop. I've already said I wasn't. I was responding to TWO SPECIFIC STATEMENTS that I quoted. One was dealing with "will of the people", and the other was specific about breaking campaign promises. That's it. End of story.
That's a touch more egregious than "breaking campaign promises".
And I'm not the one who said he broke campaign promises. And I didn't say he was a prince of a fellow who is getting a bad shake. I was specific in what I quoted, I was specific in my response. Read nothing further into what I wrote than what I wrote.
That is such a horrible view, made by an idealist rather than a realist. When both choices are unacceptable, the only logical choice is to not vote.
My view is much more realistic than yours. Neither you nor I can say why those people didn't vote. There is more than ample precedent for people not voting because they don't care, which I supported by numbers from a local election where not very many people voted, and in that election there was really just a lot of "yes/no" proposals and a lot of uncontested seats. It's very hard to claim that "yes" and "no" aren't acceptable choices to a yes/no question. It wasn't that it was too hard to vote, this was a by-mail election. It was apathy that led to those low numbers.
You can claim all you want that they didn't vote because they didn't like any of the options, but that's a guess. When someone does not vote they are not expressing an opinion of any kind. You can't count the lack of noses as anything more than a lack of noses. That makes not voting a completely illogical reaction, because in that form of election the person with the most votes wins no matter how small the turnout. By saying nothing you say nothing, you're not speaking volumes.
And when the result comes out in a way they didn't like, sure, in a country with free speech rights they technically have a right to complain about the result, but they also have a responsibility to accept the blame for the failed result. That's what the colloquial meaning of "you have no right to complain" is: you have every legal right to whine but you bear responsibility for the failure so you have no logical right to complain. "You have no right to complain" does not mean you have lost your Constitutional rights. You're making claims of censorship where none exist.
If you want a technocracy, find a place that has no government and try to create one. As a technocrat, I expect that the people you want to claim superiority over will have a different opinion, but I'm sure you would be successful if such a form of government is truly better than all others.
*sigh* "Anti-semitism" is the new "anti-American" (or anti-nationality-of-choice). It's an attempted thought-stopper, or perhaps a place-holder for where an actual argument might go. It might even be applicable if most Egyptians weren't semites also. If I was jewish you'd instead use a similar non-argument... perhaps call me a jew hating jew. *eyeroll* Egypt is one of the countries in the front and centre of Israeli foreign policy. There are tunnels into the west bank from the desert for gods sake. Yes, Israel wants a friendly government, but given Israels standing in the muslim world that may NOT necessarily mean a legitimate government. Just pointing out what should be bleedingly obvious, and perhaps a too-pessimistic view. I hope it isn't.
First off anti-semitism never had anything to do with racial semites that is arabs. Morphology is not definition, a cat house is not a place where cats live. The word anti-semitism was invented by French and German nationalists quite specifically to address the status of racially / ethnically Jewish converts to Christianity.
As for the rest, yes Israel wants a friendly government. It is possible they would be happy about a military dictatorship. But so would about 80 other countries. There is no reason to single Israel out. Israel is a bit player in Egyptian internal politics.
The USA has two reasons it's particularly interested in Egyptian politics. The first is the Suez Canal and its importance to the oil trade, and global trade in general. The second is Israel, which adds an important qualification to the type of regime the USA would be happy with in Cairo. It's no secret the USA significantly funds the Egyptian militaries budget (ie 1.3 billion annually according to wikipedia), and the Egyptian military is "managing" this whole situation. I'm floored that ANYONE could think Israeli concerns couldn't possibly be a central factor steering how Egypt is ultimately governed.
The mention of the USA I never objected to. I happen to think that's also Egyptian paranoia but the USA is actively involved as a state holder in Egyptian politics. I objected to the mention of Israel, while Israel borders Egypt so do Libya and Sudan. Israel arguably might have less influence than the other two for cultural reasons but more influence because it is far and away the most militarily powerful. There is no reason to single it out, nor any reason to group it with the USA.
It's hardly a secret that there are several important demographics in US politics who force US politicians to be especially supportive of Israel. Even a Martian would realise this from the media coverage alone - Haaretz would be howled down as anti-Israeli if it was released in the US under a different name. In addition Israel needs the USA, and therefore is a reliable US friend in a strategically important part of the world. Obama wears a sour look but sings a sweet song when meeting with Netanyahu (he obviously doesn't personally like the guy), and Obama is the man who has to make the humiliating back downs over eg. settlers in the west bank. Contrast this with how the USA regards almost everyone else... even close european allies are almost routinely disrespected. Why am I having to spell all this out? I'm no enemy of Israel. Beligerence is a sign of vulnerabilty, not strength... it's just a pity Israel can't find a way to relate to its region differently. Eventually it must.
This is unacceptable and undemocratic. Even if the guy is a crazy fanatic, this is the voluntee of people and the army must respect this choice.
Yes lets contrast it. There are very few if any other countries where the United States tries to make demands about how the country internally organizes domestic housing or distributes population. Israel is uniquely disrespected this not being a purely internal matter.
Here are two options: Either I take all your money, or I cut a bodypart off you while you sleep. If you don't vote, you don't get to complain about the outcome.
Tying complaining to voting only makes sense if there were reasonable options and an effective possibility of influencing these.
OK people lets try this *again*