Blows out of the water the “we don’t have to decide until next year” argument.
I think the point is that it’s not so much the language of the law here, but the spirit of the law that’s in question.
Clearly the law was written to head off funding tin-pot dictators of 3rd world countries who got their jobs in military coups that wrecked formerly democratic governments and institutions.
In this case, it’s not so clear-cut. The Egyptian military clearly moved Morsi out, but not with the intent of taking power for itself; they’ve appointed an interim president, with the intent of having new elections in the near future.
That’s a very different situation than some 2-bit general taking power and declaring himself Presidente-for-Life.
And anyway, it doesn’t matter since the aid’s been paid for this year, and by the time it would be time to pay next year, they’re expected to have had free elections.
See: “Despite the unrest, American officials indicated on Wednesday that they plan to move ahead with the delivery of four new F-16 fighter jets to Egypt as part of the United States’ annual military assistance.”
Which is proof that it’s not a military coup. The law swings both ways on this.
-
The law does not only require stopping of aid in the case of a military coup. It also requires it if the duly elected head of government is removed by decree in which the military plays a significant role. There is no way to argue otherwise except the stupid sophistry of “what is decree? what is military? what is plays? what is role? what is significant?”.
-
Saying that Obama ignoring the law and sending the planes to Egypt is proof that the law doesn’t apply is absurd.
The determination has to be made by some person or group of persons that there was not a military coup. Who determines that? If the government goes ahead with delivering the planes that is evidence that the government has determined there was no military coup. Until you have some congressional action stating that Obama has violated the law, then there’s been no violation.
That would be interesting if the statute said that an Egyptian gets to decide if it was a coup or not. Besides, I’m shocked, SHOCKED that an Egyptian doesn’t want us to cut off aid to his country.
Terr, why do you hate nuance?
Yeah, but the money’s been allocated and spent, which is what usually counts in Congress and laws like this. Delivering the planes is just the final stage.
If aid is stopped, delivery of planes would be stopped.
Expecting Congress or Obama to give a tinker’s damn about breaking the law is a little naive given the past 5 to 13 years, is it not?
I have no problem with an Egyptian saying it was not a coup. After all Egypt belongs to Egyptians. It can be called a revolt if they wish. I expect that Egyptians, having seen one year of the Muslim Brotherhood showcasing their version of running or governing a democratically elected regime, tens of millions voted again against them with their feet.
Was this an early revolt to ‘save’ the young sapling of liberty for the Egyptian people? Who was it that said, " The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. "
The Egyptians figured out that theirs needed refreshing quite early in the process.
I have read some interesting commentary in the European Press and one of them was about Mubarak’s former secrete police. They were a hundred thousand strong. They were mentioned with the need to take a look at how the alliances have been shifting since Mubarak was ousted. One writer observed that it looks like the former Mubarak Secret Service members seem to be allied and protecting the Secularists of seventeen million who took to the streets calling for Morsi to resign. So this go around there is an alliance against the theocratic Muslim Brotherhood made up of the secularists/ protestors/ rebels plus the perhaps 100,000 former Mubarak Secret Police and the Egyptian military.
Think about it. Secularists have the toughest and most weapon laden groups on their side now. There may not be a civil war … and perhaps that is why the Muslim Brotherhood may have calmed down and figured out just what they are up against… and are now saying stuff like this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57593288/egypts-muslim-brotherhood-vows-peaceful-defiance/
And the writing about the Secret Police comes from this excerpt and link:
I still like the odds for the secularists - the military - and the 100,000 strong former Mubarak tough guys - and many forward looking religious conservatives coming together to hold the Muslim Brotherhood’s itch for Iranian style Theocracy in check.
I’d call what happened to Morsi was a smack down or to paraphrase Jefferson.. it was a good bit of ‘refreshing the tree of liberty’ when it had to.
Call it a coup D’état if you like. It doesn’t matter within a deeper perspective.
You think this woman is representative of Egypt?:dubious:
If even 4% of all Egyptians know who she is I’ll be shocked.
Hanan Ashrawi is probably more representative of the Palestinians.
Also, Juan Cole is the guy who claimed that the US defense department was controlled by Jews who wanted to use the US military as “Israel’s Gurka regiment” so that Israel’s goals could be accomplished while only gentile blood would be shed.
Wouldn’t you agree that’s a fairly anti-Semitic belief that would cast doubt on the person’s judgment and analysis?
Or do you think there’s nothing questionable about such beliefs?
Who are you talking about? It’s Nawal El Saadawi not Hanan Ashrawi.
I’d suspect she’s pretty well known in Egypt. If I could find some stats.. I work with Several Egyptians and another outside of work who is a very good friend . I’ll ask. Would four of four suffice?
Although I do not follow the professor that closely, Juan Cole usually does well to defend charges of anti-Semitism against him - If you wish to start that debate.. how about starting another thread.
Now can we get off personal attacks and look at the content of what Nawal El Saadawi has to say. I like what she says.
That is not what he wrote.
Cole referred to a ‘pro-Likud faction’ in the Department of Defense. That is not what you wrote, “the US defense department was controlled by Jews”.
Although I have no respect of fondness for the players named in that Lawrence Franklin case, I am not taking sides on this issue one way or the other. But please stick with what was said. Cole never said the US defense department was controlled by Jews.
I have nothing good to say about Paul Wolfowitz for instance for his role in getting the US mired in the war in Iraq. I could care less what his religion is. I despise the man for what he did. There is not an anti-Semitic bone in my body. But it is quite sad when you can’t criticize someone like Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith and all the rest involved in the Pentagon with the ‘Special Plans’ for Iraq group without that crap getting throw at you.
Your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.
I said of “El Saadawi” that “Hannan Ashrawi is probably more representative of the Palestinians”.
The obvious point being that El Saadawi was even less representative of the Egyptians than Ashrawi was of the Palestinians.
El Saadawi is an academic who I suspect few Egyptians have heard of. In fact, probably far more Americans have heard of Susan Faludi than Egyptians have heard of El Saadawi.
I have to admit the mistake you made was almost as hysterical as the time you pompously proclaimed how much you knew about the Vietnam War and then revealed that you thought the US was fighting against the South Vietnamese Army.
Yes it is unless you want to be absurdly pedantic.
He claimed that the US went to War in Iraq because the US defense department was controlled by a “pro-Likud intellectuals” of which members he identified in various articles only Jews. Specifically David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz.
He specifically said they wanted to uses the US military as “Israel’s Gurka regiment fighting wars on behalf of Tel Aviv”.
Moreover, Cole specifically accused these Jewish intellectuals of believing that such war on behalf of the Jewish state “so as to increase Israel’s ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else’s boys [/B]did the dying**”.
So, to sum it up, according to Cole, the US went to War in Iraq because a bunch a American Jewish intellectuals viewed American gentile soldiers as “someone else’s boys”, whom they intended to sacrifice to the benefit of Israel and preferred to see American/gentile soldiers die than Israel/Jewish boys.
And you don’t see this as anti-Semitic?:dubious:
You’ve never heard of all the various anti-Semitic theories of Jewish elites manipulating gentiles and sacrificing gentiles for their own nefarious purposes?:dubious:
With all due respect you seem to be even less informed on the subject of the history of anti-Semitism than you are about the Vietnam War.
This is an extremely silly comment. For starters, it is quite possible to believe anti-Semitic things without being an anti-Semite. Moreover, people who are anti-Semites/racists/homophobes/whatever don’t think they’re bigots, they think they’re telling the truth.
Now, do you believe that Cole is right and that the US was pushed into war in Iraq because a bunch of Jewish intellectuals wanted to used the American military as “Israel’s gurka regiment” because they wanted to advance the objectives of “Tel Aviv” and were happy that “someone else’s boys” rather than Israeli boys would be “dying”?
Or, do you think Juan Cole is an anti-Semitic crank?
Thanks.
I wish Ibn W could provide backup for his bet that Nawal El Saadawi is little known or little represents a large segment of the Egyptian People. - Her involvement in the revolution is broad and enduring and she was right up front and center in 2011.
And if Ibn W thinks she has few supporters - on the other hand she must be well known to those in Egypt who hate her. She has been on “fundamentalist death lists”
What s courageous and strong and influential Egyptian woman this revolutionary and doctor and author appears to be.
Why does Ibn W feel the need to play down her role in this revolution?
I posted the full article from the link in the hope that Ibn W and others might read it.
So Congress passes a law. The president ignores the law. And Congress is expected to pass a “No, We Really Meant It The First Time Act”?
Seems like a strange way to interpret the Constitution.
Show a quote where Juan Cole says what you are claiming he said. I posted what he wrote. Why can’t you take it in his own words?
Where does Cole state that the DOD is ‘controlled’ by pro-Likud intellectuals?
A faction can exist in a government agency but not control much of anything. Iraq was invaded for many many illegitimate and irrational reasons. The contributions by Wolfowitz and others read a part of it but not the most significant part in my view.
Firstly, I posted this before I had read that the law gives the President the sole authority to determine when the law must be invoked, so it’s actually even squishier than I thought at the time.
But in general , yeah, what I posted is true. It’s impossible to write most laws to execute themselves like a mathematical algorithm. Someone has to interpret what they mean, and that’s generally the executive branch. The “checks” that keeps that branch from going too far are: 1) The next election 2) The courts 3) Congress, through further legislation or impeachment.
Read the papers, and you’ll see opinions by well informed people all over the map on the issue of whether this is a coup or not. Personally, I think it is. But I’m not “The Decider”. Obama is. Congress gave him that authority and if they so desire, they can take it back.