Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there was a DEMOCRATICALLY elected president... does the military have a right to take over the entire government before the president is allowed to finish his/her term? No matter how much I dislike a president, they have their entire term to finish.. so should the military have ANY say in politics or should the military be strictly to defend against the outsiders and provide ONLY humanitarian aid to its citizens...
It depends on the country. For example, in Turkey the military is actually formally tasked under their Constitution with taking over when the civilian government loses control... as they did in 1980. In our country on the other hand, civilian control of the military is absolute and the military has no such prerogative.
But Washington officials have been very careful not to describe Wednesday's events in Egypt in precisely such terms yet – leaving open the possibility they may use any power sharing by the generals in Cairo as an excuse not to trigger the clause.
..
(and here's the State Dept's statement..clear as mud)
"With respect to the ongoing situation in Egypt, it's premature to suggest that we have taken steps, we're thinking about taking steps. I'm not going to get ahead of, of course, events on the ground, but clearly assessments would be made based on the facts on the ground and choices made by all parties, if needed."
You do understand that all this is just gobbledygook don't you? Kerry want's to give them an extra Billion in Economic Aid? Nothing new about that - Hillary Clinton "forgave" a couple of Billion in loans we had given them before she left ..... both of these are "aid", not money to the Military. The State Department passes out money like they don't own it ..... which they don't. It's "other people's money" which means it's "free" as far as they are concerned.
I've already posted that the Foreign Appropriations Law is toothless - Prez and Kerry have "waivers" they can circumvent Congressional Law with whenever they choose. Clinton used a "waiver" in 2012.
Leahy's office has been urging Clinton not to use the waiver authority that Leahy himself added to the most recent appropriations bill. Now that the waiver has been exercised, Leahy is arguing that, just because the restrictions on the aid have been removed, that doesn't mean the U.S. government necessarily has to deliver the aid -- at least not all of it up front.
"Now that Secretary Clinton has decided to use the law's waiver authority, she should use the flexibility the law provides and release no more taxpayer funds than is demonstrably necessary, withholding the rest in the Treasury pending further progress in the transition to democracy," said Leahy.
Let's not forget that she sent that "aid" while Morsi was holding NGO workers (including the son of the US Secretary of Transportation) hostage as "spies & criminals". We paid $1.5 Million in "bail" and then sent an additional $1.3 Billion in Military aid. NGO Crisis in Egypt
But what reason is there to believe we'll make the correct choice to ensure that?
Our foreign policy history isn't exactly littered with glowing success stories.
We might well be better off just removing our ships from the ME and letting that cesspool fester on its own.
That would never ever happen willfully, American ships keep the lanes open for the oil tankers, which the world needs/requires. It's a nice thought you have, but not when the world is dependent on one commodity coming out of that cesspool.
This is the difference between the USA and other countries. Our elections happen and cannot be overturned except by impeachment. We just suck it up and wait it out and hope to do better the next time around.
And what happens when a President declares that they are not subject to Judicial review, disband the Congress, and declares the existing Constitution null and void? What then?
And what happens when a President declares that they are not subject to Judicial review, disband the Congress, and declares the existing Constitution null and void? What then?
And what happens when a President declares that they are not subject to Judicial review, disband the Congress, and declares the existing Constitution null and void? What then?
One can easily imagine a slightly more paranoid and alcohol-impaired Richard Nixon doing something of the sort.
But if he had tried something crazy, he wouldn't have needed to be "overthrown" as such, just arrested and Ford sworn in.
And who is to enforce that ? The military ?
But what if some other country owns that military via financial support ?
In the end, he who has the money gets to make the rules.
The oligarchs run the US; the president and especially the Congress does what they are told to do. The military is the oligarchs. There will be no military take over as long as we maintain the status quo (defense spending and corporate welfare). We are safe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
