I think a fair argument for continued $ support to the Egyptian military within the law as written is the word ‘duly’ as in ‘duly elected head of government’. I continue to agree with Nawal El Saadawi that the secular revolution of 2011 did not end with Morsi’s election. That election need not be accepted as a reliable transition to democracy. According to an Egyptian friend and co-worker what we discussed over lunch is that Morsi bought the election by seeking out millions of illiterate and poor and provide them food with a ballot circled what picture to vote for. The Muslim Brotherhood was organized to pull that off.
Enough Egyptians rejected Morsi and the case that Morsi was duly elected rests only with the Muslim Brotherhood’s most ardent fillers and thus evaporated.
IIRC, Carter Center certified Egyptian elections as “broadly reflecting the will of the Egyptian people” and again, IIRC, US government agreed with that.
… and with the US government. … and with the Carter Center.
Have you considered that there would be future elections, and the people could vote him out? For example, if Obama’s approval rating slips below 50%, is the US DoD justified in booting him out of office?
Do you think Yog has offered a reasoned way of determining if they are or not? All he or she has offered is that a president was elected and then became unpopular. If he or she would like to flesh out his his or her ideas, then that would be nice.
Have you considered that the USA has two and a quarter centuries of democratically elected governance under its belt? Morsi was doing more troubling actions than having an approval rating slip below 50%. Morsi was stacking political office to favor one party rule in opposition to electoral democracy. In other words Morsi was appearing not to e a George Washington for Egypt’s initial experiment in democratic governance.
So they made a correction before it was too late.
Also Morsi was trying to insert MB control inside the military. … not a smart move.
One advantage our 18th century colonists had to begin the experiment in self rule was that our revolution was successful against powerful but distant monarchy. The British Isle to Manhattan was a few months away for a round trip. Egypt’s revolution is entirely internal and the population is about divided into halves. One Moderate, Modern and Secular, the other fundamentalist religion.
Let’s give the Egyptians a break. This could take a few trials an errors…
Hah! This never happened in the US? FDR didn’t try to stack the SCOTUS by expanding the number of Justices so they’d enact his policies? Bush II didn’t try to stack the Justice Dept so that they would enforce his particular view of “justice”?
Oh, it was “correction”, was it? Should we have had a similar “correction” when GWB was in office? According to you, he lied us into an illegal war, and that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of people. How many people died due to Morsi’s political policies?
The main difference is that we have a way to remove a president who isn’t serving the nation. Egypt didn’t, this may have been the only way to facilitate a change that the majority felt necessary.
Aside from that, there is still a revolution going on in Egypt, and the will of the people hasn’t yet been served. It’s often a process that takes a while, and the revolution won’t end until the people are satisfied, or there is a totalitarian government. I prefer the current method to the totalitarian government. It has a slightly better chance of success, similar to improving your odds to win the lottery by purchasing a ticket.
I suppose you mean the part about Egypt. This articlehas an introductory discussion. There does not appear to have been a means to remove Morsi against his will within the law.
Such things are always determined by the people who have the power to do something about it.
In the sense that he wasn’t removed from office by impeachment, yes. In all other senses, no.
Just like determining when a president is “not serving the nation”, when the people who have the power do something about it decide.
Can you quote the part that proves there would not be another election in which the poeple could not remove him for office? Or, did you mean that the people need an instant remedy? In that case, can you explain how such an instant remedy works in the US?
The people or the military? Can you explain how “the people”, without the help of the military did this in Egypt? I’m certainly not going to argue that Morsi was not kicked out. The question is how. He was democratically elected. What constitutional process was used to eject him from office?
Morsi was impeached? Can you cite that process? Why one standard for the US and a different standard for Egypt?
You are confusing "the people’ with “the military”. The military was the sine qua non of this “revolution”. That’s a coup.
It contains no such proof. It’s been reported numerous times that there was no process in place to remove Morsi from office. If you have some evidence that there was bring it forward.
Again, there was no constitutional process to remove him from office. And that is one of the things that brings into question his status as a democratically elected president. He was a duly elected dictator of sorts and not part of a democratic government.
You asked about George Bush, that was your answer. And I’ve already explained the difference circumstances in Egypt which are blatantly obvious.
I’m not confusing them. The people clearly wanted Morsi out, the military agreed, and the military had the power to do it. But it appears the military will install another civilian government.
I’ll also note this is how Mubarak was deposed and there was no big flap about a coup then. This is a silly argument by anti-Obamites, and you are quite well aware of that.
He gets removed, or not, at the next election. Are you saying there was no mechanism to hold another election?
From Time Magazine:
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is an anti-Obamite? That was found by a 3-second google search. Many in the “not a coup” camp are Conservative Republicans who do not want to cut off aid to Egypt. What I’m “quite well of aware of” is that you are wrong on this point. You will be hard pressed to find another issue where you have very liberal Democrats and very conservative Republicans on the same side and lots of folks inbetween.
There does not appear to be a mechanism that could not be thwarted by Morsi. You may not be aware of it, but elections in Egypt are rare.
You left out the part where the US Government decided Mubarak’s overthrow was a coup and we wouldn’t provide them any more aid. Oh wait, it didn’t happen.