Is civil war in Egypt averted? 90% yes for new Constitution.

[Marmite_Lover]

More of their calls here

Scandal Of Leaked Recordings Involved 6 Of April Movement In Egypt And...

snippet

Second Call Recording: Between Mohamed Adel and Ahmed Maher 6 of April Movement members confirming on the importance of coordinating with each other first, before setting any meetings with Foreign Embassies Representatives. In addition to their **discussion of the European Union and the Embassy of Denmark funding and financing 6 of April Movement activities.
**

Adel and Maher agreed on how to chose and pick the youth who will participate in such embassies meetings.They agreed to present some of Ahmed and Adel’s friends to these embassies and introduced them as if they were members in different youth currents, in order to get what they want of funding and finances, without giving any chance to the participation of stranger elements who may waste Adel and Maher’s opportunity to get the money they want. (the parties involved in the spying and conspiracy were not just traitors but they were cheating each other too!). In addition to their agreement on the way these meetings will be run to match with Adel and Maher’s interests away from their opponents.

Mohamed Adel: I’m telling you, they only know you personally. So, you don’t need to bring them what they exactly want like the Youth of the coalition who are sitting here, you know like Ahmed Samir and others. I’m telling you they don’t know them at all.

Ahmed Maher: Exactly.

Mohamed Adel: For instance, if you bring them someone from the Brotherhood and you present him as he is from the coalition, and if you bring them someone who is not independent and introduce him to the embassies as he is independent, and we can bring them a colleague of ours from Al-Baradei’s campaign, all this will work and believe me they will say then yes this is the coalition!

If we act as I told you, we are getting big benefits and getting all what we want and in the meantime, we stay away from these amateurs coalition boys, are you paying attention?

You know lately, it was published in the newspapers that you took 500000,00 USD, I don’t know if you have heard this or not.

Ahmed Maher: 500000,00 USD did they publish from who I took the money?

Mohamed Adel: I don’t remember, but those who published this news about you, said that they will bring documentations and papers.

Ahmed Maher: Qatar…Besides Qatar, Sheikha Moza.

Moahmed Adel: Yes, yes…

Ahmed Maher: **Other than the 2 Million, I have 2.5 Million. **Those son of bitches.

[Marmite_Lover]

“I told the embassy of course we will do as they order us. And I brought them Marwah and introduced her as independent and I also brought Abd Elrahman Ayash and introduced him as blogger…Ok!?”

[Marmite_Lover]

and you here cry when our army arrests them… when they say ‘oh we were only putting up some posters’

[Dissonance]

@Terr

One can either be employed or unemployed, one cannot be both. But you’re still the same exact person, whether employed or unemployed. There is no “state of being” there.

:rolleyes:Aside from the fact that one is either employed or unemployed, just as one is either a civilian or in the military. Nope, no state of being there, you’re still the exact same person. Since you didn’t seem to get it the first time I’ll say it again slowly for you: Eisenhower was not in charge of the Army, much less the armed services of the United States when he was a General of the Army. The Commander in Chief was in charge of the Army and the armed forces of the US. The Commander in Chief was the president, who is a civilian. For Eisenhower’s tenure as a General of the Army his Commander in Chief was first FDR and then Truman.

@Terr

Your citations didn’t answer my question. Here it is again: “Please cite the language of the law that requires that one retires from the military and resigns his commission before election to the presidency.”

Gee, this took all of 10 seconds of googling Military Folks and Politics – What You Can and Cannot Do:

Holding or Running for Political Office

Cannot - Hold civil office in the federal government, if that office:
•is an elective office.
•Requires an appointment by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or
•Is a position on the executive schedule under sections 5312 through 5317 of title 5, U.S.C.
This prohibition does not apply to retired and reserve members who have been called to active duty for a period of 270 days or less, as long as the office does not interfere with military duties. If the retired or reserve members receives orders which state active duty recall will be for more than 270 days, the prohibition begins on day one of active duty.
A member on active duty may hold or exercise the functions of a civil office in the U.S. Government that does not fall into one of the three categories described above, including when assigned or detailed to such office to perform such functions, provided there is no interference with military duties.

Cannot - Hold local civil office (state, county, city), with the following two exceptions:

Any enlisted member may seek, hold, and exercise the functions of nonpartisan civil office as a notary public or member of a school board, neighborhood planning commission, or similar local agency, provided that the office is held in a non-military capacity and there is no interference with the performance of military duties.

Any officer may seek, hold, and exercise the functions of a nonpartisan civil office on an independent school board that is located exclusively on a military reservation, provided that the office is held in a non-military capacity and there is no interference with the performance of military duties.

Again, this prohibition does not apply to retired and reserve members who have been called to active duty for a period of 270 days or less, as long as the office does not interfere with military duties. If the retired or reserve members receives orders which state active duty recall will be for more than 270 days, the prohibition begins on day one of active duty.

As I said, you are clearly debating in bad faith. I’m done looking up non-debatable factual information for you.

[Alessan]

@Marmite_Lover

Obama to hold his first US-African summit and guess what

He does not invite Egypt

But is Egypt in Africa or in the Middle East? It can’t be both!

[Marmite_Lover]

@Alessan

But is Egypt in Africa or in the Middle East? It can’t be both!

:rolleyes:

Egypt is in Africa, Middle East, and Asia

[Terr]

@Dissonance

:rolleyes:Aside from the fact that one is either employed or unemployed, just as one is either a civilian or in the military. Nope, no state of being there, you’re still the exact same person. Since you didn’t seem to get it the first time I’ll say it again slowly for you: Eisenhower was not in charge of the Army, much less the armed services of the United States when he was a General of the Army. The Commander in Chief was in charge of the Army and the armed forces of the US. The Commander in Chief was the president, who is a civilian. For Eisenhower’s tenure as a General of the Army his Commander in Chief was first FDR and then Truman.

You seem to be going off on the tangent here and arguing things that no one, including me, contradicted. Try looking up my argument and argue against it, if you like.

Gee, this took all of 10 seconds of googling Military Folks and Politics – What You Can and Cannot Do

It may have, but you claimed explicitly that it was in your cite. It wasn’t.

As I said, you are clearly debating in bad faith. I’m done looking up non-debatable factual information for you.

Ah so you found that it is a military regulation that a member of the military cannot run for political office. But you were claiming that it was in the Constitution. As we find out, it is really only the military itself that decided that a member of the military cannot run for office.

[Corry_El]

@John_Mace

1. Yeah, since the current government got there via a coup!
2. I agree.

1. I said Egypt doesn’t have a democratic system, but no that’s not just because of how the current govt got there. Let’s assume we’re all reasonably informed people who don’t believe in vast conspiracy theories and concerted total inaccuracy of all well established media outlets (though most Egyptians don’t fall in either category as our friend Marmite shows). So we all know Morsi won a basically non-rigged election, and that his constitution likewise won a basically non-rigged referendum. However IMO that does not mean Egypt had a ‘democratic system’. A democratic system can be declared IMO at the soonest the first time people in power get voted out and actually leave power in response. And even if elections themselves are not rigged, a real democratic system depends on some independence of institutions (the courts, media etc) from the people in power. Egypt was nowhere near that, and not headed toward it under Morsi by any reasonable estimation IMO. Likewise for example Venezuela under Chavez and now Maduro is not a democratic system, and no reason to consider those leaders any more legitimate than people who might execute coups against them, depending on specific circumstance and subsequent actions.

I grant this can be a matter of opinion in any given case, but the world is complicated and messy. What’s a silly oversimplification though is the idea that people who come to power via elections below some threshold of irregularities automatically deserve support from actual democratic countries or else the latter are ‘hypocrites’ (you didn’t say that and perhaps don’t mean that, but I think it’s implied in answering the statement ‘Egypt doesn’t have a democratic system’ just by pointing to the current govt). IMO no, there’s no hypocrisy for countries like the US to accept a govt like the current Egyptian one over one like Morsi’s, subject to our agreement in point 2 that the US should be as little involved in Egyptian politics as possible either way.

[Corry_El]

@Terr

But you were claiming that it was in the Constitution. As we find out, it is really only the military itself that decided that a member of the military cannot run for office.

The prohibition against running for office* as an active member of the military is not in the US Constitution. However ‘the military itself’ cannot make any regulation its commander in chief doesn’t approve, its commander in chief is the President, and that is in the Constitution.

You can invent some past hypothetical by which an active duty general could have been elected before there were any such regulations (they don’t date back all the way to the beginning of the Constitutional republic) but it would be beside the point, as the whole discussion in comparing Eisenhower to Sisi. The difference between those two men’s situation is one country with a long tradition of separation of the military from politics, and another with a tradition of the military ruling the country, with at most fig leaf kind of distinctions (the guy starts wearing a suit instead of his uniform, etc) that anything else is going on. You’re not going to find the answer to how Egypt gets out of that situation, if indeed you agree it must to ever join the advanced nations, by claiming that the US is really in that situation too, which it simply isn’t.

*it’s not actually an absolute prohibition on running, but on either campaigning or serving in the office if elected without first resigning.

[Terr]

@Corry_El

The prohibition against running for office* as an active member of the military is not in the US Constitution.

Not only is it not in the US Constitution. It is not even in UCMJ. It is in a DoD directive.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Shodan

I can do no better than to simply highlight this statement in all its preposterous glory.

Democracy is great, except for that part where people vote.

Regards,
Shodan

You could argue a point if you have some kind of issue with my statement. But I see you chose to avoid that route.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Corry_El

1. I said Egypt doesn’t have a democratic system, but no that’s not just because of how the current govt got there. Let’s assume we’re all reasonably informed people who don’t believe in vast conspiracy theories and concerted total inaccuracy of all well established media outlets (though most Egyptians don’t fall in either category as our friend Marmite shows). So we all know Morsi won a basically non-rigged election, and that his constitution likewise won a basically non-rigged referendum. However IMO that does not mean Egypt had a ‘democratic system’. A democratic system can be declared IMO at the soonest the first time people in power get voted out and actually leave power in response. And even if elections themselves are not rigged, a real democratic system depends on some independence of institutions (the courts, media etc) from the people in power. Egypt was nowhere near that, and not headed toward it under Morsi by any reasonable estimation IMO. Likewise for example Venezuela under Chavez and now Maduro is not a democratic system, and no reason to consider those leaders any more legitimate than people who might execute coups against them, depending on specific circumstance and subsequent actions.

I grant this can be a matter of opinion in any given case, but the world is complicated and messy. What’s a silly oversimplification though is the idea that people who come to power via elections below some threshold of irregularities automatically deserve support from actual democratic countries or else the latter are ‘hypocrites’ (you didn’t say that and perhaps don’t mean that, but I think it’s implied in answering the statement ‘Egypt doesn’t have a democratic system’ just by pointing to the current govt). IMO no, there’s no hypocrisy for countries like the US to accept a govt like the current Egyptian one over one like Morsi’s, subject to our agreement in point 2 that the US should be as little involved in Egyptian politics as possible either way.

Just quickly read through, but your point that “Egypt was nowhere near that, and not headed toward it under Morsi by any reasonable estimation IMO” is I believe largely missed by many posting here.

[Trinopus]

@Corry_El

The prohibition against running for office* as an active member of the military is not in the US Constitution. However ‘the military itself’ cannot make any regulation its commander in chief doesn’t approve, its commander in chief is the President, and that is in the Constitution. . . .

And it’s even more messy than that, given that the Congress has the power to regulate the military, and is the only body that can authorize the use of force.

Clinton tried to integrate the military with respect to gays…and Congress told him no. That was how we got the sloppy compromise of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The power of Commander in Chief is limited.

This is not always true in countries where the head of state/head of government is also the supreme commander of the military.

[NotfooledbyW]

Has Tagos made a bad prediction

!!"I *predict Egypt will now descent into a long algerian type civil war with the MB turning permanently away from democratic politics and the army (as happened in Algeria) staging outrages to justify an endless state of emergency and bloody brutal crackdowns on any dissent from any quarter.

The old elites have defeated the revolution. "!!*

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16577017&postcount=11

The Army isn’t interested in ‘fixing’ Egypt. Ever since the Spring they’ve played the Long Game aimed at getting things back to Mubarak Without Mubarak.

They have now succeeded in destroying The MB as a legitimate poitical actor (the MB played into the Army hands here both as a protest and s a government unwilling to resist acting on ‘winner takes all’), bloodying the hands of the rest of the opposition in the process. They have also reestablished the understanding that from now on the army and police will use brutal force against any dissent. And they have also established that there is nothing the West can or will do about it.

I predict Egypt will now descent into a long algerian type civil war with the MB turning permanently away from democratic politics and the army (as happened in Algeria) staging outrages to justify an endless state of emergency and bloody brutal crackdowns on any dissent from any quarter.

The old elites have defeated the revolution.

[NotfooledbyW]

Have predictions of civil war faded and shown as unfounded since last summer when I wrote this?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=16468784

@NotfooledbyW

And those organization were technically correct. The voting process went off pretty well and the election was close and the Islamists slightly prevailed. I don’t question their impression that the tools of an election worked. My point is that during the revolutionary upheaval of the events of 2011 an election so close could only truly determine that the will of the people was very strongly divided at best.

That all could have worked had Morsi recognized the significant historic power that he had acquired and his mandate was not to take his Bloc of support to establishment of his party rule as the mandate of the 2011 revolution.

It was the secularists revolt that brought the MB’s nemesis/Mubarak down. Morsi needed to pay some homage to the secular and moderate spirit of half the nation. They did not begin a revolution to go from a soft moderate tyranny to a strong Islamist tyranny that would crush the ideal of liberty and freedom and tolerance of religion for a new order of life run by the Aystollahs through a fundamentalist in a business suit like Morsi.

The Carter Center was right the election was legit as elections go. But this was far from an ordinary election and Morsi won it but he blew what he should have done with his slim win considering all the circumstances and the divided will of all the people.

Morsi blew it and deserved to be gone. Morsi even as a moderates was not showing that he was looking to establish and preserve an established democratic self-rule where the secular and non-Islamic rule would be kept separate.

There were other conservative blocs that opposed what Morsi was doing once he gained power. I think he was taking direction from the religious hierarchy, not and ideal of individual liberty. And he can’t crush the ideal of individual liberty, specifically when the military for selfish reasons of course, will not ever hand military power over to the Ayatollahs.

[Dissonance]

You could not possibly debate in worse faith if you tried, Terr.

@Terr

You seem to be going off on the tangent here and arguing things that no one, including me, contradicted. Try looking up my argument and argue against it, if you like.

I’d like to think you are joking, but I know you’re not. You claim not to understand the difference in the state of being a civilian and being in the military in a discussion of civilian control of the military. You also claimed nothing changed aside from symbolically when Eisenhower became a civilian, the president, and the commander in chief, erroneously insisting that he had been in charge of the army before he resigned and after.

It may have, but you claimed explicitly that it was in your cite. It wasn’t.

Again, you are either too disingenuous or lazy to actually click on the link I provided, click on the footnotes at the end of the paragraph I quoted, and click on the links in the footnotes to the cites. Again, you are clearly not debating in good faith.

Ah so you found that it is a military regulation that a member of the military cannot run for political office. But you were claiming that it was in the Constitution. As we find out, it is really only the military itself that decided that a member of the military cannot run for office.

And just when I thought you couldn’t get any worse, you come up with this steaming load of horseshit. Care to point out to me where I was claiming that it was in the Constitution? Here’s a clue: I never did.

[Terr]

@Dissonance

You claim not to understand the difference in the state of being a civilian and being in the military in a discussion of civilian control of the military. You also claimed nothing changed aside from symbolically when Eisenhower became a civilian, the president, and the commander in chief, erroneously insisting that he had been in charge of the army before he resigned and after.

The President was in charge of the military. Eisenhower was the Army Chief of Staff. Army Chief of Staff is in charge of the Army. That’s why he’s the Chief of Staff of the Army.

Again, you are either too disingenuous or lazy to actually click on the link I provided, click on the footnotes at the end of the paragraph I quoted, and click on the links in the footnotes to the cites.

Oh, so if I click on the link, click on another link, and then click on the third link, I will find something. And you’re calling that a “cite”. Now who’s not debating in good faith.

And just when I thought you couldn’t get any worse, you come up with this steaming load of horseshit. Care to point out to me where I was claiming that it was in the Constitution? Here’s a clue: I never did.

No, you’re right, you never did. Trinopus did - as in "Well, you could argue that the whole U.S. Constitution is just “symbolic.”. You all blend together after a while.

[Marmite_Lover]

@Terr

You seem to be going off on the tangent here and arguing things that no one, including me, contradicted. Try looking up my argument and argue against it, if you like.
It may have, but you claimed explicitly that it was in your cite. It wasn’t.
Ah so you found that it is a military regulation that a member of the military cannot run for political office. But you were claiming that it was in the Constitution. As we find out, it is really only the military itself that decided that a member of the military cannot run for office.

In Egypt the Military and Police are not allowed to vote just incase anyone here was thinking that a lot of the YES voters were Military or Police…

[Marmite_Lover]

@Corry_El

1. I said Egypt doesn’t have a democratic system, but no that’s not just because of how the current govt got there. Let’s assume we’re all reasonably informed people who don’t believe in vast conspiracy theories and concerted total inaccuracy of all well established media outlets (though most Egyptians don’t fall in either category as our friend Marmite shows). **So we all know Morsi won a basically non-rigged election, and that his constitution likewise won a basically non-rigged referendum. **However IMO that does not mean Egypt had a ‘democratic system’. A democratic system can be declared IMO at the soonest the first time people in power get voted out and actually leave power in response. And even if elections themselves are not rigged, a real democratic system depends on some independence of institutions (the courts, media etc) from the people in power. Egypt was nowhere near that, and not headed toward it under Morsi by any reasonable estimation IMO. Likewise for example Venezuela under Chavez and now Maduro is not a democratic system, and no reason to consider those leaders any more legitimate than people who might execute coups against them, depending on specific circumstance and subsequent actions.

I grant this can be a matter of opinion in any given case, but the world is complicated and messy. What’s a silly oversimplification though is the idea that people who come to power via elections below some threshold of irregularities automatically deserve support from actual democratic countries or else the latter are ‘hypocrites’ (you didn’t say that and perhaps don’t mean that, but I think it’s implied in answering the statement ‘Egypt doesn’t have a democratic system’ just by pointing to the current govt). IMO no, there’s no hypocrisy for countries like the US to accept a govt like the current Egyptian one over one like Morsi’s, subject to our agreement in point 2 that the US should be as little involved in Egyptian politics as possible either way.

All of the monitors reported massive fraud and vote rigging at the above elections. Jimmy Carter foundation said they would never observe another because it was so bad.

[Marmite_Lover]

In the USA the SCAF is the President.

In Egypt the SCAF is Abdel Fattah Assisi.

That’s why Egypt has an army to be proud of.

We don’t have lunatics like Bush and Obama etc declaring war all over the place, and often based on lies like WMD’s., or 9/11, what’s happening in Libya and Syria etc etc etc etc