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

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

I wonder if Mace is exclusive possessor of that power because if not - why couldn’t one insert ‘it is a coup’ based upon the affirmative statement that it walks and quacks like one.

That question has already been answered.

If I write: “It was a coup, but it wasn’t a coup”, can I claim that I never wrote “it wasn’t a coup”? Of course not, because I did.

You have amply demonstrated that one individual can hold contradictory positions. This is something you should readily understand.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

That question has already been answered.

If I write: “It was a coup, but it wasn’t a coup”, can I claim that I never wrote “it wasn’t a coup”? Of course not, because I did.

You have amply demonstrated that one individual can hold contradictory positions. This is something you should readily understand.

I never wrote ‘it was a coup but it wasn’t a coup’ and neither did anyone else that’s been cited. That makes you a debater basing your argument on a false claim.

And look at this:

@CarnalK

It doesn’t matter if we all agree it was a coup or “technically not”. We all know the fact is the military took over and replaced the leader.

At least one of you is starting to get it.

I wrote on 07-11-2013 at 09:58 PM, “Call it a coup D’état if you like. It doesn’t matter within a deeper perspective.”"

[NotfooledbyW]

For the record on 06-24-2006 at 08:54 PM John Mace posted this containing the ‘weasel words’ 'strict definition.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves It’s already way too late. Allawi 3 months ago:

(-John Mace) For some reason you forgot to quote this from your cite (emphasis added):

Quote: Analysts say Mr Allawi’s comments are part of political manoeuvring as talks continue over creation of a government.

(-John Mace) But there’s no **strict definition **of a when an insurgency becomes a civil war. I wouldn’t call it that, but if you insist that it is, then I’ll just say the civil war will get even worse, and (this is a huge problem the ‘cut and run’ crowd overlooks) could easily spill over into Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

[CarnalK]

@John_Mace

I agree. Calling it “not a coup”, or even “not technically a coup” is a denial of the plain facts before us. The president was forcibly removed from office, extra-constitutionally. If that ain’t a coup, then the word has no meaning.

Yeah, Horatio Hellpop was saying it wasn’t necessarily “extra-constitutional”. Thus the “technically not a coup”.

But this and subsequent posts show you didn’t get my point at all. You and NfbW both agree to the facts,if not what to call these facts, and could just move on to the real points of debate, like how this is going to work going forward, how valid concerns about Morsi were, or really anything other than “You said it wasn’t a coup” “No, I didn’t”. So instead of being serious about the business of debate you are playing a silly game of gotcha - with a guy who clearly has communication issues.

[John_Mace]

@CarnalK

Yeah, Horatio Hellpop was saying it wasn’t necessarily “extra-constitutional”. Thus the “technically not a coup”.

I asked NFBW before, and he never answered, to quote the part of the constitution that says the military can take over the government at will. If HH wants to carry NFBW’s water on this issue, fine. So far, I have not seen any proof that this was constitutional. Have you?

[CarnalK]

No. I think it can be fairly called a coup with popular backing. If you could understand my post, you would see that I think it’s idiotic to keep arguing about what to call it.

[Horatio_Hellpop]

Hi. Just poking my head in here briefly.

I am not an expert on coups or the Egyptian constitution. At the time Morsi was being removed, I repeated a talking point that was being offered by (I think) Salon magazine, saying that Egypt’s constitution actually allows its military to remove a president in certain situations, and this might be one of them, and were the Obama administration so inclined, they could have used this as a fig leaf to continue funding Egypt’s army.

These talking points came and went very quickly. I doubt I could find the exact cite today, but could have back when they were making it. Ultimately, the Obama administration went a different direction, decided it was a coup, and defunded the Egyptian military.

I lack the expertise or strong feelings about the subject to contribute more to the debate. I’m all in favor of stability in the Middle East, free elections and liberal democracies but will concede that not all of these an be imposed by outsiders on modern-day Egypt and have no helpful suggestions for them at this point.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Horatio_Hellpop

I’m all in favor of stability in the Middle East, free elections and liberal democracies but will concede that not all of these an be imposed by outsiders on modern-day Egypt and have no helpful suggestions for them at this point.

And I see I was right when I wrote on 02-04-2014 at 03:29 AM, "I believe Horatio Hellpop is a very reasonable man in this comment. ““This arguably does not meet the strict definition of a “coup,” although it kind of walks and quacks like one.”” You know call it a coup if you like since it is technically a coup… "
Some interesting and relevant excerpts on the Coup d’état Kerfuffle can be found here. “The Wikipedia war over Egypt’s ‘coup’” posted onMon Jul 8, 2013 at 10:30AM By Marya Hannun, Foreign Policy

Read More: http://www.presstv.com/usdetail/312810.html

In recent days, the protests and clashes over the Egyptian military’s July 3 ouster of President Mohamed Morsi have transpired amid a parallel battle over semantics – specifically whether the dramatic events of the past week constituted a “coup.”

In arguing for a title change, some Wikipedians have asserted that it’s hypocritical to call Egypt’s first popular uprising in 2011 a “revolution” and second in 2013 a “coup,” given that both required military intervention to realize popular demands for a change in political leadership.

“To describe the events which allowed Morsi’s rise to power as a ‘revolution’ but those which led to his downfall as a ‘coup’ is clearly biased and violates NPOV [Neutral point of view],” one user writes.

And this report ends with a tilt to the 'wisdom of the crowd.

Then there is the appeal to the wisdom of the crowd – or to search engine optimization, depending on your reading. “I suggest that the page be renamed something like Egyptian Revolution of 2013,” a Wikipedian offers. “More than 31,000 hits on Google News for ‘second Egyptian revolution.’”

That has been my take too since it happened. This was a second ‘revolution’ and anyone can call it a coup d’état if they like… It really doesn’t matter in the larger perspective.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

I asked NFBW before, and he never answered, to quote the part of the constitution that says the military can take over the government at will. If HH wants to carry NFBW’s water on this issue, fine. So far, I have not seen any proof that this was constitutional. Have you?

I have not argued that the Constitution ‘says the military can take over the government at will’… So I do not have to quote it or respond. But here’s an excellent opinion on that question.

I doubt John Mace would accept anyone’s opinion that does not fit his own. But this explanation appears to be written by someone who in my opinion knows more about the subject than John Mace does.

The SCAF’s decree: Coup d’état or crime d’état?

A coup d’état is the sudden, illegal deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to depose the extant government and replace it with another body, civil or military. A coup d’état is considered successful when the usurpers establish their dominance.

Egypt’s ostensible transition to civilian rule has been characterised by legal chaos as a series of judicial rulings have confounded predictions at every turn.

In April, for example, the Supreme Presidential Elections Commission (SPEC) provoked consternation by its decision to disqualify ten candidates, including three front-runners, from the presidential race.

One month later, a single candidate – Ahmed Shafiq – unexpectedly re-entered the race after another court ruled that his disqualification had been unconstitutional. When examined individually, these decisions rest on firm legal ground.

As constitutional scholar Nathan Brown points out, the overturned ‘political isolation’ law that barred Mubarak-era prime minister Shafiq from running on the basis of ties to the former regime, could indeed be interpreted as unconstitutional.

Elsewhere, the laws that governed last year’s parliamentary elections could reasonably be interpreted as a breach previous SCC rulings requiring independents to have the same chances to get elected as party members.

Nevertheless, the issue here is not the individual decisions themselves, it is the combined damage that the entire body of rulings has wrought on the nation’s political process. Occurring at a surprising speed, these have successfully wrenched power from emerging democratic institutions and placed it in the hands of the generals.

***So was this a coup d’état? If we apply a strictly legal definition to the junta’s powergrab then the answer has to be no. ***After all, the military’s recent political maneuverings have all been sanctioned by Egyptian law. But when examined through the lens of state crime, a different picture starts to emerge. Defined by Green and Ward (2004) as ’organisational state deviance involving the violation of human rights’, this mode of analysis offers a way to examine the actions of a state – here, the SCAF – that act in a manner that contravenes international norms ***despite being legally valid within a given territory. ***

Read more: http://leloveluck.com/2012/06/19/the-scafs-decree-coup-detat-or-crime-detat/

A key point from the above commentary:

{***So was this a coup d’état? If we apply a strictly legal definition to the junta’s powergrab then the answer has to be no. ***After all, the military’s recent political maneuverings have all been sanctioned by Egyptian law.}
And that opinion is made by someone that does not look kindly upon the SCAF and its human rights violations as evidenced by this:
{But when examined through the lens of state crime, a different picture starts to emerge. Defined by Green and Ward (2004) as ’organisational state deviance involving the violation of human rights’, this mode of analysis offers a way to examine the actions of a state – here, the SCAF – that act in a manner that contravenes international norms despite being legally valid within a given territory. Viewed in this light, the SCAF’s legalised powergrab is indeed the crime of a predatory state and as such, can indeed be labelled a coup. The institution has repeatedly abused its power to re-write the rules of the political game, and this latest move denies opposition forces the right to meaningful political participation, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.}

[John_Mace]

Still waiting for you to point the part of constitution that says this it’s perfectly OK for the military to step in and overthrow the government. Alternatively, I’m sure you’ll realize that it doesn’t and admit that you made an error, right?

[NotfooledbyW]

@CarnalK

Yeah, Horatio Hellpop was saying it wasn’t necessarily “extra-constitutional”. Thus the “technically not a coup”.

But this and subsequent posts show you didn’t get my point at all. You and NfbW both agree to the facts,if not what to call these facts, and could just move on to the real points of debate, like how this is going to work going forward, how valid concerns about Morsi were, or really anything other than “You said it wasn’t a coup” “No, I didn’t”. So instead of being serious about the business of debate you are playing a silly game of gotcha - with a guy who clearly has communication issues.

I moved on last July when I wrote, as you have written recently that, ‘it doesn’t matter’ what anyone calls the ‘fact that Morsi is done’ and how it came to be.

But you may be missing what my problem with Mace happens to be. You phrased it like this, … * “You said it wasn’t a coup” “No, I didn’t” *… But the facts are that I have not ‘argued’ that it was not a coup. I never argued that it wasn’t a coup. John Mace cannot debate the issues directly so he goes about making claims that I did argue that it was not a coup.

I personally do not appreciate anyone making claims about ‘my arguments’ that have no basis in fact and they cannot cite my writing directly.

I have no communication issues. If posted claims that you argued something that you clearly never argued I would think you would protest too.
I have addressed the points you wish to see discussed,

" the real points of debate, like how this is going to work going forward, how valid concerns about Morsi were,:
Do you agree with anything I’ve written … and if not… what does your opposing view consist of?

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Still waiting for you to point the part of constitution that says this it’s perfectly OK for the military to step in and overthrow the government. Alternatively, I’m sure you’ll realize that it doesn’t and admit that you made an error, right?

No. You need to cite where I have argued that the Constitution ‘says’ it is perfectly OK for the military to step in. More of the same from you. Nothing to back up your claims about what my arguments are.

I answered this an hour ago. Why don’t you respond to it?

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

No. You need to cite where I have argued that the Constitution ‘says’ it is perfectly OK for the military to step in. More of the same from you. Nothing to back up your claims about what my arguments are.

Already cited. Not going to do it again, except maybe here.

[NotfooledbyW]

(-NotfooledbyW 02-01-2014 04:59 PM) My point has been that to be a head of state of a duly elected government and not have full and complete authority over the military and then be ousted by the military, makes that military take/over to be more of a constitutional act than a military coup.

**It’s still a coup but it is an uncommon version of a coup. ** <“Cite”

(-John Mace 02-01-2014 05:08 PM) Can you quote the part of the constitution that allow the military to take over the civilian branch of the government? <“Cite”
Here’s another example of Mace demanding a quote that makes absolutely no sense when viewed in the full CONTEXT of what I wrote.

It was more of a constitutional act than a military coup ‘but still a coup’ because there was no constitutional *power of force *to maintain the military under the full control of civilian leadership, as in taking orders’ from a democratically elected president. Morsi did not *effectively *have full and unchallenged constitutional authority over the military as president. It is a constitutional necessity that is normal in most functional democracies. That ‘effective’ weak constitutional position that Morsi experienced for one year is not written in the Constitution and I never argued that it was. It was an expressed reality due in large part because of the inherent problems that follow revolution and the overthrow of long established dictatorships.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Already cited. Not going to do it again, except maybe here.

You can’t cite it there and you have never cited it … because it does not exist.

See my previous post…
I cite full quotes in full context yours and mine…

You post nothing of the sort. providing nothing to see. Just your claims. Nothing else to go on.

[Marmite_Lover]

What an El Sissi presidency would mean for Egypt’s relations with the Gulf States
By Sooud Al-Qassemi on February 20, 2014

The announcement by Egypt’s Defense Minister, now Field Marshall, Abdel-Fattah El Sissi that he would be running for president was greeted with joy and with apprehension, not only in Egypt, but also in the Gulf States. If current trends hold, it seems increasingly likely that El Sissi will be comfortably elected to serve as president of Egypt for at least the next four years. Egypt’s relations with the Gulf States under a potential El Sissi presidency will largely be shaped by the positions these states have taken in the past few months.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and Bahrain, who considered the Muslim Brotherhood to be a significant domestic threat, have strengthened relations with Egypt following the overthrow of former president Mohammed Morsi. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, who welcomed Morsi’s overthrow immediately pledged $12 Billion to post-Brotherhood Egypt, increasing their assistance in the subsequent months. If elected, President El Sissi will look to build on the current relationship with these states, possibly by visiting Riyadh, where he previously served as military attaché, and Abu Dhabi soon after the election. Although the UAE’s Prime Minister stated in an interview with the BBC that he “hopes (El Sissi) remains in the military, and that another person [runs] for the presidency”, a clarification was soon issued by the official news agency saying that the “brotherly advice is that General al-Sissi should not run as a military man for the post of the presidency”. El Sissi has already stated that Saudi’s support for Egypt will “never be forgotten” and expressed gratitude for the UAE’s aid.

The least vocal of the Gulf States, Oman, has also made its preferences clear in regards to its relationship with Egypt. A few days after the bloody crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood protesters in Rabaa Square last August an Omani daily close to the government wrote in an editorial that the Sultanate stands with Egypt’s leadership in “all the necessary steps taken by it to maintain peace”. An official statement was also released by Oman media in support of Egypt’s government on the third anniversary of the January 25th uprising condemning the violence that marred the celebration. Oman, which has no notable Brotherhood presence, is partly motivated as a result of its diametrically opposed view with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood towards Syria. Oman considers events in Syria to be an “internal affair”, and in an interview with London-based Al Hayat, and carried on Al Monitor, the Omani foreign minister said that he told members of the Syrian National Council “they need to reexamine their opinions, because killing, destructing and displacing Syrian civilians are unacceptable.” Morsi’s presidency had thus been seen as problematic to Oman because Morsi had proclaimed that “Egypt’s leadership, people and army will stand by the Syrians”, a statement that the army, including General El Sissi, had refuted the next day.

There is no doubt that the biggest loser in the Gulf from the election of General Sissi would be Qatar, whose relations with Egypt have deteriorated significantly over the past few months. Qatar enjoyed especially close ties with the Brotherhood; its operational leader Khairet El Shater was a frequent visitor to Doha discussing “the coordination between the Brotherhood, the Freedom and Justice Party and Qatar”. Qatar had backed the Brotherhood government in Egypt with almost $8 billion as well as providing favorable media coverage for the group through its then popular Al Jazeera network. Following the July uprising/coup Qatar’s close ties with the Brotherhood turned from being an asset to a liability almost overnight. Qatar criticized the August 2013 crackdown and called on the new Egyptian military government to “refrain and relinquish” their heavy-handed approach. Al Jazeera channel’s offices in Egypt were swiftly shut down and its journalists expelled while several of those who remained were jailed. Relations further deteriorated when Doha issued a statement accusing Egyptian authorities of having a “shoot-to-kill policy” towards protestors. Cairo then summoned the Qatari envoy and both the acting president and the spokesman for Egypt’s Foreign Ministry warned, “patience and tolerance towards Qatar has limits”.

Despite its desperate need for funding, Egypt has opted to return $3 Billion to Qatar and plans on returning a further $3 billion by the end of 2014. According to Al Ahram, the Brotherhood had given Qatar a number of assurances in exchange for Doha’s generosity including “technical support” for the Syrian opposition, the rotation — possibly to a Qatari citizen — of the Arab League Secretary General post, and “Egyptian approval of Qatari nominees on behalf of the Arab group in several international and regional forums”. It can be assumed that these assurances are no longer applicable in the light of the changes in Egypt’s leadership.

For most countries in the Gulf, therefore, an El Sissi presidency will bring a familiar, trustworthy and capable partner on issues of common concern such as Iran, the Middle East peace process and Turkey. On the other hand, Qatar’s continued support for the Muslim Brotherhood in exile will likely be seen as a direct challenge and threat to Egypt’s new popular strongman. This may result in the further deterioration of relations.

[NotfooledbyW]

Marmite Lover 02-21-2014 12:55 AM What an El Sissi presidency would mean for Egypt’s relations with the Gulf States By Sooud Al-Qassemi on February 20, 2014 Excerpt:

Qatar had backed the Brotherhood government in Egypt with almost $8 billion as well as providing favorable media coverage for the group through its then popular Al Jazeera network

(-Human Action 02-03-2014 08:08 AM) [sp]Egypt’s system of government shouldn’t be for sale, no. Democracy, remember?
Apparently Egypt’s system of government was for sale and foreign contributions may have helped purchase an election win for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in 2012.

I wonder if Human Action applies his rule of thumb… (which is a correct ideal for achieving functional democratic governance with respect for human rights) … to the Muslim Brotherhood… as a political party while either running for control of the government in Egypt or while governing Egypt after winning and to the monarchy of Qatar.

Just wondering?

A somewhat related link…

Qatar: The small Arab monarchy with the loud democratic voice

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

I have not argued that the Constitution ‘says the military can take over the government at will’… So I do not have to quote it or respond. But here’s an excellent opinion on that question.

I doubt John Mace would accept anyone’s opinion that does not fit his own. But this explanation appears to be written by someone who in my opinion knows more about the subject than John Mace does.

The SCAF’s decree: Coup d’état or crime d’état?

Read more: http://leloveluck.com/2012/06/19/the-scafs-decree-coup-detat-or-crime-detat/

A key point from the above commentary:

{***So was this a coup d’état? If we apply a strictly legal definition to the junta’s powergrab then the answer has to be no. ***After all, the military’s recent political maneuverings have all been sanctioned by Egyptian law.}
And that opinion is made by someone that does not look kindly upon the SCAF and its human rights violations as evidenced by this:
{But when examined through the lens of state crime, a different picture starts to emerge. Defined by Green and Ward (2004) as ’organisational state deviance involving the violation of human rights’, this mode of analysis offers a way to examine the actions of a state – here, the SCAF – that act in a manner that contravenes international norms despite being legally valid within a given territory. Viewed in this light, the SCAF’s legalised powergrab is indeed the crime of a predatory state and as such, can indeed be labelled a coup. The institution has repeatedly abused its power to re-write the rules of the political game, and this latest move denies opposition forces the right to meaningful political participation, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.}

That’s a 2012 article that pre-dates Morsi’s removal, and is about the the military’s shenanigans during the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, and not the 2013 coup.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Human_Action

That’s a 2012 article that pre-dates Morsi’s removal, and is about the the military’s shenanigans during the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, and not the 2013 coup.

Pay attention. I posted it as an opinion in response to Mace’s bogus request for a quote where Egypt’s Constitution actually states that it is ok for the military to overthrow the civilian Govenment.

You can read the date on the link. Very well done.

Thank you,

[Human_Action]

@NotfooledbyW

Pay attention. I posted it as an opinion in response to Mace’s bogus request for a quote where Egypt’s Constitution actually states that it is ok for the military to overthrow the civilian Govenment.

You can read the date on the link. Very well done.

Thank you,

So, to address the question of whether the Constitution allowed the military to take over the government at will, you posted an article written before that Constitution existed. Great work.