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."
Microsoft Microsoft. Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft?
Bing is simply superior to Google. Bing can do anything, and you can do anything with Bing. There's nothing you cannot accomplish with Bing.
Don't believe me? Bing it on, trash! I'll drag you into the 21st century!
Doesn't Egypt use a King?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
So when is our armed forces going to do the same here?
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!
I will blame all bad news on you guys for the next 10 years. Sorry, but you have sort of earned it...
since we don't seem to be using right now I don't see any problem.
yeah thats right baby
Can I light a sig ?
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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").
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
the whole world is dumber because you posted that
And a good read. Thank you.
Morsi stated publicly that Israel was his master, and that his only duty was ensuring that Israel and the USA were pleased by his policies. In a nation that still recognises people-power, is it any wonder he has been thrown out?
The Muslim Brotherhood is, like the modern Wahhabi version of Islam pushed by Saudi Arabia, nothing more than a zionist front created by the British. It is no coincidence that Obama loves the Muslim Brotherhood just as much as the entire Republican and Democratic parties of the USA love the Siamese-twins of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Unfortunately the British and Americans also control the dominant military leaders in Egypt, just as they do in Pakistan. The people of Egypt are just as foolish believing in their choice as Americans are when they choose between a Republican and Democrat president. They are both two faces of the self-same thing, existing to give the illusion of choice.
Of course, the military coup in Egypt does cause massive disruption to the settled plans of Obama, given that any 'new' government will need to be bedded in, and find their own excuses for putting the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the Egyptian people. For things to change, the Egyptians would have to identify and eliminate all their dominant civilian and military leaders that were actually educated and trained in the West. This will never happen. Egypt suffers the same 'Roman' system that existed there during the height of the Roman Empire.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
Tahrir square might be having the best Independence Day party anywhere. You can see the livestream here. http://reuters.livestation.com/demo
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.
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.
OK people lets try this *again*