Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Davlos on 04 Jul 2013, 07:25
-
(http://i.lvme.me/kqbip35.jpg)
This was the only polite way I could express myself when I heard that Morsi was told by the Army that he was no longer the President. This sets a terrible precedent for any civilian leader who gets elected - if he shows signs of screwing up, does this mean that the plebs can have the right to overthrow him just because he's disliked?
The plebs only have themselves to blame for not electing the kind of leader they ideally wanted. After all, with an overall 54% voter turnout on 2011, it only comes to show just how terribad Egyptians are. :bash: Why bother overthrowing an autocratic dude when you don't even bother to show up to exercise your democratic right to vote for the first time in decades?! If you don't like being lorded over by the Muslim Brotherhood, then let them serve out their 4 years before electing someone else for fuck's sake!
-
The probbo with Egypt was that their first Democratic election wasn't Democratic at all, but rather effectively rigged. The Muslim Brotherhood party secured about 13m votes, and won the election with 52% of the vote. The signature collection to recall Morsy gathered 22m signatures.
Morsy is widely regarded as failure by most Egyptians including a portion of his own Islamist core. He's been unable to bring crime in Egypt back down since the revolution, and he quickly lost the support of everyone outside his core by his stupid move to prevent his decisions being questioned by Egyptian courts. Suffice it to say, he's not too popular with the 50% of Egypt that has vageens, either. For the Egyppos, it's very much a matter of "meet the old boss, same as the new boss."
-
Well, Davlos, demonstrations are citizens exercising their democratic rights. Even if they screwed up at the elections, if they realized this just now, I don't see how it's wrong of them demonstrate and correct their mistake. That's democracy. Letting the president serve out his 4 years is placing the rights and powers that is derived from the will of people over the the fundamental democratic rights of the people.
Also, I mean if you decide on a four year saving plan and find out after a few weeks that you'll loose all your money with it, will you stick to it because you earlier decided that is how you save your money the next four years? I hope not.
-
Once people taste freedom and determination, they're really unwilling to give it up to a guy who looks keen on taking it back.
-
Unless the people are Germans. :)
-
Morsy quickly demonstrated a dedication to power-grabbing and exclusion beyond his mandate, and a lovely slide toward shittery.
Army and people having none of this.
Remains to be seen if the interim period before new elections will in fact be 'interim' but who knows.
This is one of the reasons we've maintained extremely close ties with their military leadership these last thirty years or so; Everyone knows where the bread is buttered and who is calling the shots.
This will look more like a Pakistan type situation with a generally ineffective series of 'democratically' elected governments who can do what they want while the military maintains an unassailable third pillar of the state.
-
Also I'll add electing someone to power (Morsy) who turns out to try and change all the rules to ensure his and his partie's perpetual stranglehold on the process means another election will not be a solution.
-
What really shocked me was - after tiptoeing around the military for a bit right after he was elected - Morsi suddenly seemed to believe that he had become immune to their might and could afford to forget that the military had deigned to allow democratic elections in the first place. This may be an "outsider's vision" thing, but to me it looked like a pretty silly thing to do.
-
54% voter turnout isn't that bad really, considering egyptian (election) infrastructure and sometimes having to wait in line for 3 hours before you can cast your vote.
Sure, it's not a european voter turnout percentage, but the USA had 59% in 2012.
-
In the fragile and early beginnings of a new Democracy it's often necessary for the Army to provide some guidance to the emerging government. They are, after all, the only organisation in a nascent nationstate with the power to do so.
When an elected representative spends most of their energy and mandate on making changes to the laws that limit the scope and duration of their powers it has to be seen as nothing less than a betrayal. Clearly Morsi was the wrong man, representing the wrong people. Time for the Army to do what's needed, form an interim government and then go back to the people.
-
I don't think the military should ever be the vanguard of democracy. There is no guaranteed way to remove them once any semblance of constitutionalism is in place.
-
Whatever the military should or shouldn't be, it often is - one way or the other - midwife of democracy.
-
And the military appoints a Chief Judge as the interim president - not a Colonel or General.
-
I remember a case where a democratic system gave birth to a dictatorship. When you think about it, it always comes down who the military supports whether it is 'good' or 'bad'. Regardings its capacity - it's likely the only organisation within a nation that would be able to function when the government is in disarray.
-
I remember a case where a democratic system gave birth to a dictatorship. When you think about it, it always comes down who the military supports whether it is 'good' or 'bad'. Regardings its capacity - it's likely the only organisation within a nation that would be able to function when the government is in disarray.
It's also the only instance that has the power to enforce order in such a case... Thus, there are good reasons why, in a democracy, the military power should rest with the people. Like, say, in the Swiss citizens army.
-
I don't think the military should ever be the vanguard of democracy. There is no guaranteed way to remove them once any semblance of constitutionalism is in place.
I invite you to review the case of Pinochet's Dictatorship and the transition to a widely recognized democracy in Chile.
-
Oh no, Seriphyn is right: There is no guarantee. But what is guaranteed?
-
I've been impressed with the Egyptian military thoughout both of these incidents, tbh. At least from what I've seen, they appear to be the ones with the most level heads on their shoulders. /shrug
-
But what is guaranteed?
The lowest prices in town at Bob's Used Cars!!!
-
Turkey has had a fairly rich history of the military overthrowing the government and then immediately handing power back to the citizens with the Caveat that "Party X" cannot run in the election. Maybe Egypt's military is trying for the same sort of thing.
-
I remember a case where a democratic system gave birth to a dictatorship. When you think about it, it always comes down who the military supports whether it is 'good' or 'bad'. Regardings its capacity - it's likely the only organisation within a nation that would be able to function when the government is in disarray.
It's also the only instance that has the power to enforce order in such a case... Thus, there are good reasons why, in a democracy, the military power should rest with the people. Like, say, in the Swiss citizens army.
I swear I have read something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) in something important (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html).
-
I remember a case where a democratic system gave birth to a dictatorship.
Was it the Senate and Caesar ?
-
I don't think the military should ever be the vanguard of democracy. There is no guaranteed way to remove them once any semblance of constitutionalism is in place.
No but it can be a safeguard, especially if the "elected leader" strongarms the new constitution into place.
-
The plebs only have themselves to blame for not electing the kind of leader they ideally wanted.
You know that doesn't work in the rest of the world either, right? Americans can vote all they like for presidents and congressmen and judges, they still don't get to vote on legislature to legalize oligopolies, they didn't get to vote on the Glass-Steagall Act being suspended or the Patriot Acts...
Democracy doesn't inherently let citizens have control over their country. Egypt is still rusty at the very idea of voting, let alone how long it takes a democratic process to take effect. I'm not saying letting their army control the government is a good idea, but it's not shocking that "let the guy we don't like run out the clock on a 4-year term" didn't sit well with them, either. Especially not now, when they have a taste for the bad habit of using coups to solve everything.
-
I don't think the military should ever be the vanguard of democracy. There is no guaranteed way to remove them once any semblance of constitutionalism is in place.
I invite you to review the case of Pinochet's Dictatorship and the transition to a widely recognized democracy in Chile.
I invite you to consider that this was only permitted to happen because he got a free pass on murdering people. And his cronies are still very much in the power structure, with the implicit threat that if they don't like the way the country is going they'll just murder some more people.
-
I have to agree with Samira. I can't be perfectly informed but as I see it, the Egyptian military has played a fairly even hand.
1) democracy in the middle east is a tricky affair.
Who the fuck are you? What do you know about this? Well I worked in Central Asian and Middle Eastern embassies for a few years and I literally was there for for the drafting of a constitution. I have to admit: it seems to have failed, but I was involved in the process in a small way.
2) Initially the Egyptian military submitted to first the will of the people and then Morsi.
Again it's how I understand it from my limited access to US and European news sources. But I remember several months ago the military backed down for Morsi because he had a popular mandate.
I don't see the military as wanting to impose a a new Mobarak regime. But I do see them working to ensure that a similar but more islamist regime isn't established.
-
The moment that Morsi set aside the secular Judiciary as the first step in installing Sharia law the secular majority was unlikely to sit still for it.
-
I agree, but I'm admittedly biased. I learned Arabic from a Coptic christian from Alexandria.
-
It's also the only instance that has the power to enforce order in such a case... Thus, there are good reasons why, in a democracy, the military power should rest with the people. Like, say, in the Swiss citizens army.
I swear I have read something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) in something important (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html).
I think there is a big difference between a mob that has the right to be armed and a citizens army... but yah.
-
It's also the only instance that has the power to enforce order in such a case... Thus, there are good reasons why, in a democracy, the military power should rest with the people. Like, say, in the Swiss citizens army.
I swear I have read something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) in something important (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html).
I think there is a big difference between a mob that has the right to be armed and a citizens army... but yah.
Generally speaking firearm power belonging to the military and executive power to the people may be the healthiest (?) for a democracy.
-
My only real worry is that this benevolent coup could end up in a bit of an Oliver Cromwell situation.
For those who don't know much about Cromwell, the New Model Army and the Engish Civil War, though Cromwell and the NMA originally meant well, religious toleration, rights of man etc, they ended up doing some dickish things, baiscally becoming a dictatorship which was monarchy in all but name, and got replaced by an exiled king in the end.
Though obviously there are marked differences between the scenarios, it demonstrates that this could go one of two general ways.
-
I will likely get flamed for this but I'll go ahead and say one of the main reasons why the Egyptian Military is doing such a relative 'good' job about all of this is because the US has been heavily involved and interlinked with their military for decades. I'm rusty on specifics but I was under the impression we've done a lot of work with their officer corp and leadership in training, etc. Our military culture and especially it's role in our democracy, a lot of that 'culture' has been shown to the Egyptian Military. We have a close relationship with their military and not with their government.
-
It's also the only instance that has the power to enforce order in such a case... Thus, there are good reasons why, in a democracy, the military power should rest with the people. Like, say, in the Swiss citizens army.
I swear I have read something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) in something important (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html).
I think there is a big difference between a mob that has the right to be armed and a citizens army... but yah.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ...
A militia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia) is a body of citizens organized for military service.
While the right to be armed is important, the writers of the US Constitution expressed the need for a well regulated militia or a citizens army as being necessary to the security of a free state.
I will likely get flamed for this but I'll go ahead and say one of the main reasons why the Egyptian Military is doing such a relative 'good' job about all of this is because the US has been heavily involved and interlinked with their military for decades. I'm rusty on specifics but I was under the impression we've done a lot of work with their officer corp and leadership in training, etc. Our military culture and especially it's role in our democracy, a lot of that 'culture' has been shown to the Egyptian Military. We have a close relationship with their military and not with their government.
Well, the US sells* the Egyptian (and other states) military equipment and with this equipment comes all kinds of training opportunities. For example, when Egypt bought Abrams tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Operators) for example, it is likely some cadre of Egyptian armor officers and crews got to visit Fort Knox and learn first how to operate it and then train others how to operate it. In addition, I suspect more than a few of their senior leaders have had the opportunity to attend US military senior leadership schools (like the National War College).
*I use the term sell loosely here because I suspect the aid we provide comes with some strings attached, like buying American made military equipment vs Russian/Ukrainian equipment.
It is relatively easy to create this relationship between military officers and even enlisted, since they can train together and create those relationships before they are needed. That option does not really exist for governance, since it is much harder to work out the kinks of the relationship when you can't take a "strategic pause" and discuss what went wrong and what went right.
-
It's also the only instance that has the power to enforce order in such a case... Thus, there are good reasons why, in a democracy, the military power should rest with the people. Like, say, in the Swiss citizens army.
I swear I have read something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) in something important (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html).
I think there is a big difference between a mob that has the right to be armed and a citizens army... but yah.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ...
A militia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia) is a body of citizens organized for military service.
While the right to be armed is important, the writers of the US Constitution expressed the need for a well regulated militia or a citizens army as being necessary to the security of a free state.
A militia isn't the same as an army/military. The thing with the well regulated militia is that even if the writers of the US Constitution thought of it as (also) an internal defense against unjust governance, they did implement it badly, because while there is a right to bear arms, there is no constitutional obligation to train to achieve military discipline.
Thus to form an organized militia, the armed mob would need military training, which could practically only provided by the US military, which isn't a 'citizens military' but an military of professionals. Thus, if the military is working as a tool of oppression, there is little possibility to form an organized militia against the US armed forces and the government.
For compairsion: Look at the percentage of people in the Swiss or e.g. Israel that served in the military and got military training and compare that with the US. I think the 2nd Amendment hat the security against an invasion from the outside in mind, not the idea to give the citizens the ability to forcefully remove a government if it's turning undemocratic.
-
A militia isn't the same as an army/military. The thing with the well regulated militia is that even if the writers of the US Constitution thought of it as (also) an internal defense against unjust governance, they did implement it badly, because while there is a right to bear arms, there is no constitutional obligation to train to achieve military discipline.
I disagree that they implemented it badly. I think the American Civil War demonstrates the effectiveness of well regulated militias to become armies. However, throughout the 20th century the US military transitioned away from having to call upon the state militias in order create effective fighting forces.
Thus to form an organized militia, the armed mob would need military training, which could practically only provided by the US military, which isn't a 'citizens military' but an military of professionals. Thus, if the military is working as a tool of oppression, there is little possibility to form an organized militia against the US armed forces and the government.
You are correct in the modern era the core of the US military is entirely a professional military and has been since the draft was ended. I think the lack of a citizens army creates all kinds of domestic and foreign policy pitfalls, to include a greater willingness of the political elite to utilize a professional military, ie go to war.
For compairsion: Look at the percentage of people in the Swiss or e.g. Israel that served in the military and got military training and compare that with the US. I think the 2nd Amendment hat the security against an invasion from the outside in mind, not the idea to give the citizens the ability to forcefully remove a government if it's turning undemocratic.
I do not disagree that the modern Swiss and Israeli military frameworks are better for maintaining a healthy state.
However, to dismiss the idea that a military whose manpower is derived from the citizens as whole (versus professionals) does not act as a defense against domestic tyranny is to ignore the argument set forth in The Federalist #29 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm). The modern world makes the argument a little out-dated, but I think it remains fundamentally true - how can a would-be-tyrant impose their will using the militia/citizens army against those very citizens and their families?
-
However, to dismiss the idea that a military whose manpower is derived from the citizens as whole (versus professionals) does not act as a defense against domestic tyranny is to ignore the argument set forth in The Federalist #29 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm). The modern world makes the argument a little out-dated, but I think it remains fundamentally true - how can a would-be-tyrant impose their will using the militia/citizens army against those very citizens and their families?
I don't dismiss the idea, I just think that the constitutional laws in the US are ill suited to secure that there is a militia/citizens army present. Similarly, I lament that Germany just transformed it's armed forces into being run by professionals.
-
"To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff" - George Washington
Not wanting to move too off topic here, I'd like to express my serious and very sincere doubt that "citizen militias" are a viable long term solution to any country's domestic or foreign problems.
After all, look west of Egypt and take a look at how militias are working out for Libya.
-
The Confoederatio Helvetica exists since 1 August 1291 and is a federal parliamentary republic. They always had a citizens military. Certainly a citizen army doesn't solve all problems of a country, but I doubt that Washington was as experienced in the ways of democracy a the Swiss people.
-
The Confoederatio Helvetica exists since 1 August 1291 and is a federal parliamentary republic. They always had a citizens military. Certainly a citizen army doesn't solve all problems of a country, but I doubt that Washington was as experienced in the ways of democracy a the Swiss people.
Among the problems with venerating the Swiss model, as people often do, one of the most poignant issues is that Switzerland does not bear the deep, deep scars of wars abroad and at home or vicious sectarianism or deep rooted historical societal conflict.
In short, Switzerland has never been put to the test.
-
Even though I'm fairly liberal as it applies to gun control, the 2nd, and militias in general, I do think compulsory military service out of public education would change America for the better, although it would be impossible to implement now barring some sort of calamity that shifts the unconscious public dialogue, like 9/11 on steroids.
But yeah, I can't help but point and laugh at 2nd amendment fanatics and their contention that the right to bear is their golden ticket for maintaining their freedom and personal liberty. It is the 21st century, the government does not give a fuck about your AR-15 rifle. I don't believe the American armed forces could ever be used as a force of oppression in the way many military and paramilitary forces are, due to those soldiers being American citizens raised to despise such an act, but for precisely the same reason I think the concept of a militia effecting large scale political change hilarious. So they refuse your demands, what is your militia going to do? Start slaughtering American soldiers?
And although I am no expert, almost positive Silas is correct about the Egyptian military. This is exactly the reason why the initial Egyptian revolution did not end up the way Libya, Syria, and Turkey have. The Egyptian army had more at stake with US relations than with the incumbent Egyptian government, and because of this history of relative autonomy, the Egyptian generals are all powerful political figures in their own right. This is not to say that they are bastions of truth and justice, no more than the American military is, but they are perhaps the most progressive fighting force in that region of the world next to perhaps the IDF.
-
In short, Switzerland has never been put to the test.
Err... the battle at Morgarten (1315) and Sempach (1385) at which the Swiss fought for their independence from the Holy Roman Empire, the famous swiss mercenaries, which had a monopoly on pike military service until 1490, the Swiss peasant war of 1653, the Battles of Villmergen 1655 and 1712 and then the Sonderbundskrieg of 1847.
Never had to bear the deep, deep scars of war⸮ Right.
And how about the Israeli citizen's army? They never had to bear the scars of war either?
-
How is this really that different then the proto-united states tearing up the Articles of Confederation and starting over? Egypt is in for a rocky few years, but I think it would be a mistake to crucify them over this, or write their democracy off as a failure. Au contraire, I think the fact that they're all willing to go back out there, go 'this isn't working for us,' tear everything out and start over, is a really good sign. I think its something we could use more of in the United States.
-
In short, Switzerland has never been put to the test.
Err... the battle at Morgarten (1315) and Sempach (1385) at which the Swiss fought for their independence from the Holy Roman Empire, the famous swiss mercenaries, which had a monopoly on pike military service until 1490, the Swiss peasant war of 1653, the Battles of Villmergen 1655 and 1712 and then the Sonderbundskrieg of 1847.
Never had to bear the deep, deep scars of war⸮ Right.
And how about the Israeli citizen's army? They never had to bear the scars of war either?
I take your point about Switzerland but I believe Israel has been described as a military with a country, with more than a little justification. Also I wonder what modern Israeli doctrine is doing to their troop quality? Nothing good I suspect.
-
I believe they keep the citizen's army segregated from the career military units, who look down on them in the same way the armed forces tends to look down on reservists in the field. That being said, the overall standard for the IDF is pretty intense, so while their grunts are perhaps less effective than highly trained units, they still hold their own amongst the nations they tend to scrap with.
-
I believe they keep the citizen's army segregated from the career military units, who look down on them in the same way the armed forces tends to look down on reservists in the field. That being said, the overall standard for the IDF is pretty intense, so while their grunts are perhaps less effective than highly trained units, they still hold their own amongst the nations they tend to scrap with.
Yes. But when was the last time the IDF fought a national army with any chance of inflicting damage on them? And how much are they being used for controlling civilians or blowing up crowds of folk in the hope of killing the target who is amongst them? I doubt any of this is helping to make good soldiers.
-
Yes. But when was the last time the IDF fought a national army with any chance of inflicting damage on them? And how much are they being used for controlling civilians or blowing up crowds of folk in the hope of killing the target who is amongst them? I doubt any of this is helping to make good soldiers.
1948 Arab–Israeli War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War)
Six Day War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War)
Yom Kippur War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War)
1982 Lebanon War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War)
2006 Lebanon War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War)
Gaza War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War)
Granted some of those later examples don't feature armies with chances of inflict damages on them, but I would argue that this is primarily because of the early examples. Israel is in an extremely unfortunate situation in that they were basically forced to become like the modern United States in their foreign policy from the moment they settled there because they are surrounded by people who want to kill them.
The unfortunate reality (and I'm not calling you out, I know this isn't what you're saying), is that most conversations about conflicts involving Israel aren't really about the specific conflict, they are about whether or not the state of Israel should even exist. Depending on which side you fall on, you have access to all sorts of propaganda that sounds extremely reasonable and tricks you into believing one side or the other is the devil.
We tend to disparage Israel in the western world because pretty much all of their wars have ended with massive loss on the opposing side and nearly negligible loss of Israeli life, but that's exactly the way America fights its wars. Israel isn't particularly vicious (although they definitely can be, but if my homeland was continuously shelled basically since its founding, I'd be a little pissed too), they are just extremely well trained.
The reality is that both sides are right and, more importantly, both are very wrong. You have to bear in mind that, in almost all ways, this conflict is really about a sibling rivalry that began 3000 years ago (Isaac v. Ishmael) and has torn the world apart ever since.
-
As far as I see it, both the Palestinians and the Israelis have blood on their hands, and its a problem going back not thousands of years, but to the founding of the Israeli state. The British didn't handle the power transfer very well and consequently, instead of accepting the original proposed two state solution, the Palestinians ganged up with the rest of the arab world and tried to just remove Israel. The situation now in Palestine is really a result of that failed land grab.
That doesn't mean the Israeli are innocent either, because the fact is that for refusing now to recognize a Palestinian state, while at the same time not giving the people living in the West Bank and Gaza the rights of Israeli citizens, is creating a really untenable situation. All of the Gaza Strip is basically living under 'regional house arrest' and Israel is happily settling the West Bank despite there being Palestinians living there. Its going to come to a head one of three ways as I see it:
1) The international community forces Israel to recognize Palestine as an independent state, and lift the blockades they are currently held under (moderately likely, really depends on what the United States does as we're Israel's biggest backer)
2) Israel doesn't accept a Palestinian state, but extends the full rights as citizens to all of the Palestinian people. (Fairly unlikely, there's a lot of racial prejudice to overcome for this to be at all viable)
3) Israel does neither of those things, and slowly grinds the Palestinian people under their heel, and basically wipes them all out. (Somewhat disturbingly possible)
-
Granted, a lot of the specific problems are specific to the events that have taken place since the end of WWII, but I would argue that the reason the situation is as fucked as it is also has a lot to do with underlying racial tensions that have been around a lot longer than the modern Middle Eastern power blocs.
-
In short, Switzerland has never been put to the test.
Err... the battle at Morgarten (1315) and Sempach (1385) at which the Swiss fought for their independence from the Holy Roman Empire, the famous swiss mercenaries, which had a monopoly on pike military service until 1490, the Swiss peasant war of 1653, the Battles of Villmergen 1655 and 1712 and then the Sonderbundskrieg of 1847.
Never had to bear the deep, deep scars of war⸮ Right.
And how about the Israeli citizen's army? They never had to bear the scars of war either?
Most of those happened centuries ago, though some have a more political significance. And letting your citizens go off to be mercenaries is another thing entirely to declaring a war or being declared war upon.
You seem to have misunderstood. Switzerland, while certainly has it's own defining marks and stories, has been rather marginal when it comes to many influential events, revolutions and movements of the past few centuries, a policy which has evidently served them well. My point was, particularly in the modern context, Switzerland should not be used as the cut-out example when talking of militias or gun-ownership related citizen responsibility.
I'm not quite sure what you meant to do by bringing up Israel, not really relevant to my point. I suppose it's worth pointing out that Israel and Switzerland face radically different challenges in radically different fields.
But as subsequent posts have proved, an interesting point all on it's own.
-
Regarding Israel and Palestine, let's not sugarcoat anything.
There's a section of Palestinian fighters, people like Hamas, who are viciously anti-semitic and are not above the worst methods. A good many would wipe Israel and it's people clean off the map if they could. They dance to the tune of creating an dictatorship with Islamist ideology on Israel's grave, and they do more than just hate Israel but more than that, they hate the people of Israel.
However, Israel on the flipside, is a quasi-totalitarian regime that that is living under apartheid in all but name, and has demonstrated many times it's will to steamroller over the ethics and beat the Palestinians into a bloody submission. Most Israelis simply want to make a life for themselves in their ancestral homeland. But there's a small but vocal minority touting a supremacist attitude that puts "white man's burden" to shame.
Like most conflicts of hatred, the extremists rule, while the moderates are marginalised, even if they are in the majority.
-
My point was, particularly in the modern context, Switzerland should not be used as the cut-out example when talking of militias or gun-ownership related citizen responsibility.
And why shouldn't they? Because they are a well regulated peaceful society? First you say because they didn't see war, now they didn't see war recently enough.
I'm not quite sure what you meant to do by bringing up Israel, not really relevant to my point.
Well, I then remind you of your generally denigrating view of "citizen militias" - by the way, again, there's a difference between a militia and an army, even if the latter is mainly made up of citizens rather than "professionals". Israel has, to remind you, a general draft. So if you say Switzerland doesn't count because it hasn't recently enough played a role in armed conflict you deem worthwhile, how about Israel? Never had to bear the deep, deep scars of war, just as Switzerland, because the conflicts aren't the right conflicts?
-
Isn't a citizen militia the door to all sorts of abuses ?
Anyway the only thing that stopped Egypt to get into the same situation than Syria/Lybia/Tunisia is the army's coup. Otherwise, it always starts with very idealistic and peaceful revolutions, that get taken by extremist currents and they eventually end up voting/supporting an extremist power. Examples are countless in that world. Already happened in Iran, etc.
Granted, a lot of the specific problems are specific to the events that have taken place since the end of WWII, but I would argue that the reason the situation is as fucked as it is also has a lot to do with underlying racial tensions that have been around a lot longer than the modern Middle Eastern power blocs.
Not only about racial tensions. Other underlying conflicts here are much less spoken of and yet as much as, if even more, "important" than the usual ideological ones.
I am refering to the water war as well as territorial control. The main threat and enemy to the Palestinian state is not Israel, but the HAMAS, for the simple reason that the main war is happening between those two groups that fight for the political control.
-
Granted, a lot of the specific problems are specific to the events that have taken place since the end of WWII, but I would argue that the reason the situation is as fucked as it is also has a lot to do with underlying racial tensions that have been around a lot longer than the modern Middle Eastern power blocs.
I disagree. I think that while the racial tensions were present, they were only really brought into the forefront by putting Israel where it ended up.
Maybe this is just me, but I think the attachment of people to any particular strip of land is kind of stupid in this age of globalisation. At the end of the day we all live on the Earth and are citizens of the planet. I think the situation would have honestly probably been much better served by putting the Jewish state the British were putting together somewhere else. There's plenty of other places a Jewish state could have ended up, that didn't require evicting the locals, and didn't create a massive spike in racial tension. The attachment to those particular areas, areas that hadn't had a Jewish State in them in almost 2000 years, seems pretty dumb to me.
-
The pogroms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots) and other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riots_in_Palestine_of_1920) attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre) on Jews prior to the 1948 Mandate heavily disagree with that theory, unfortunately. It was pretty bad long before the British started actually planning the creation of Israel.
-
Granted, a lot of the specific problems are specific to the events that have taken place since the end of WWII, but I would argue that the reason the situation is as fucked as it is also has a lot to do with underlying racial tensions that have been around a lot longer than the modern Middle Eastern power blocs.
I disagree. I think that while the racial tensions were present, they were only really brought into the forefront by putting Israel where it ended up.
Maybe this is just me, but I think the attachment of people to any particular strip of land is kind of stupid in this age of globalisation. At the end of the day we all live on the Earth and are citizens of the planet. I think the situation would have honestly probably been much better served by putting the Jewish state the British were putting together somewhere else. There's plenty of other places a Jewish state could have ended up, that didn't require evicting the locals, and didn't create a massive spike in racial tension. The attachment to those particular areas, areas that hadn't had a Jewish State in them in almost 2000 years, seems pretty dumb to me.
Like, in Madagascar ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan) Okay okay, sorry, couldn't resist. :D
More seriously, it is more complicated than that. While I will be the last to disagree with your way of seeing things here, Israel was not done like that in one day. Prior to that they were part of a british mandate, with 20-30% of palestinian jews vs the rest of arabic origin. They eventually obtained the creation of a jewish state, and then got their independence (to be immediately declared war upon by 4 neighbors). The Partition plan initially proposed by the UN was accepted by all but the Arab Union, so, it failed, and war ensued.
Saying that it shouldn't exist is like saying that Kosovo shouldn't, or Kurdistan, or similar cases of whole differing nations within bigger states. That's a point of view of course.
Also, it is worth pointing out that initially the Society of Nations in 1919 decided to act in favor of the brits to create a fair partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. All of this actually came out of a well intentionned plan that eventually ended up in the screwed up situation we have now.
-
plenty of other places a Jewish state could have ended up
Mandatory reading for you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah)
-
plenty of other places a Jewish state could have ended up
Mandatory reading for you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah)
I'm aware.
At this point, its really too late. Israel exists, and isn't going to stop existing. That is the world we live in today, and its the one we have to work with. Moving Israel is not going to work.
-
I disagree. I think that while the racial tensions were present, they were only really brought into the forefront by putting Israel where it ended up.
Maybe this is just me, but I think the attachment of people to any particular strip of land is kind of stupid in this age of globalisation. At the end of the day we all live on the Earth and are citizens of the planet. I think the situation would have honestly probably been much better served by putting the Jewish state the British were putting together somewhere else. There's plenty of other places a Jewish state could have ended up, that didn't require evicting the locals, and didn't create a massive spike in racial tension. The attachment to those particular areas, areas that hadn't had a Jewish State in them in almost 2000 years, seems pretty dumb to me.
I'm not saying that there wouldn't be conflict in that region over Israel's founding if it weren't for the cultural history surrounding it, obviously the situation was fucked from the moment they declared independence on a strictly logical geopolitical level. But I hope that you will at least agree that so many people wouldn't feel so fanatically passionate about the issue if there wasn't an associated religious significance to the land on both sides.
Obviously the people of Palestine will always feel an innate sense of injustice over the issue because from their perception, the founding of Israel carved up their state, but the reason the surrounding regions are so vehemently anti-Israel isn't just because of their fear toward the new power bloc, its because some of the holiest sites in the Islamic religion are located within Israeli territory. And if Jerusalem wasn't so important to the Jews, I am sure they would at least be more amenable to recognizing the fucked nature of their situation.
Regarding the attachment to culturally significant pieces of land...I mean, these are people who preach one man/one woman monogamy while at the same time revering Kings who had thousands of concubines and a man who had sex with both of his daughters in a cave. They are not exactly the most rational people in the world. That being said, its always easy to adopt that perception when on the outside looking in. If the Native Americans had a sudden population boom and demanded New York back, do you think that would be entirely ridiculous and unjustified? Its a trick question, I know you wouldn't because you're a hippie. I turn your strengths to weaknesses mwahahahaha!
Regarding Israel and Palestine, let's not sugarcoat anything.
There's a section of Palestinian fighters, people like Hamas, who are viciously anti-semitic and are not above the worst methods. A good many would wipe Israel and it's people clean off the map if they could. They dance to the tune of creating an dictatorship with Islamist ideology on Israel's grave, and they do more than just hate Israel but more than that, they hate the people of Israel.
However, Israel on the flipside, is a quasi-totalitarian regime that that is living under apartheid in all but name, and has demonstrated many times it's will to steamroller over the ethics and beat the Palestinians into a bloody submission. Most Israelis simply want to make a life for themselves in their ancestral homeland. But there's a small but vocal minority touting a supremacist attitude that puts "white man's burden" to shame.
Like most conflicts of hatred, the extremists rule, while the moderates are marginalised, even if they are in the majority.
Agree 100%. Its uncanny how similar the situation in Israel politically is to the situation in the United States. Both governments are, to one extent or another, being held at gunpoint by their religious fundamentalist minority. Just as the Tea Party and other like minded groups within Congress are attempting to end the practice of political compromise and disparage all members of their party who reach across the aisle, the Orthodox minority in Israel makes their government look barbaric and imperialistic because without the State, they have no power, and they are willing to go to any lengths to preserve and strengthen it.
-
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was not written as a guarantee of the individual US citizen's right to arm him- or herself. It was written as a guarantee that the Federal government would not prohibit any state government from allowing their citizens to arm themselves. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it was written to guarantee the rights of states, not the rights of individuals.
-
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was not written as a guarantee of the individual US citizen's right to arm him- or herself. It was written as a guarantee that the Federal government would not prohibit any state government from allowing their citizens to arm themselves. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it was written to guarantee the rights of states, not the rights of individuals.
While I'm not 2nd Amendment fundamentalist, Natalcya, and while the text of the 2nd Amendment can be read as supporting your claim, there's a lot more to the Bill of Rights than that.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I: Religion, Speech, and Assembly - private, State only by a stretch.
II: Right to bear arms, admittedly to protect a "free State."
III: Right not to be stuck housing soldiers in your home. Private.
IV: Right against unreasonable search + seizure. Private.
V: Due process, etc.. Private.
VI: Speedy & public trial, etc.. Private.
VII: Trial by jury. Private.
VIII: No excessive bail. Definitely private (how exactly would you bail a state?)
IX: Naming some rights does not disparage others held by the people. Private.
X: Powers not named for the federal gov't in the Constitution are reserved to the States, or to the people. State + private.
-
I was a bit imprecise, admittedly. The Bill of Rights does make guarantees toward individuals, but originally pretty much only as far as Federal legislation was concerned. Individual states were under no real obligation to make the same guarantees to their respective citizens, essentially meaning that in practice, an individual American citizen's actual legal rights was decided by his or her state of residence, not by the Federal Constitution. Also, the Bill of Rights, from my understanding, was introduced largely to placate those states which had been hesitant to ratify the Constitution in the first place. Hence my position that the Bill of Rights was originally about the Federal government promising to stay out of the business of its participant states, not about guaranteeing the legal rights and freedom of any and all of its citizens.
I: Religion, Speech, and Assembly - private, State only by a stretch.
This Amendment did not put any restraint on state governments until the passing of Amendment XIV at the earliest, and in practice not until the process beginning with Gitlow v. New York in 1925. Individual states historically made numerous laws restricting speech, religion and free assembly. Breach of peace laws would ban some public protests; some states collected religious taxes; pro-abolition literature was banned in the Antebellum South.
II: Right to bear arms, admittedly to protect a "free State."
As mentioned, I believe that this was originally primarily a safeguard against Congress disarming the member states of the Union. Admittedly, the states don't actually seem to have been very restrictive themselves in this regard, historically. I would not be surprised if even free blacks were prohibited from carrying weapons in most or all of the Antebellum South, but I don't actually know. The earliest example of an actual local gun control law I can think of at the top of my head was the one enforced by Wyatt Earp in Dodge City, and I have no idea how mindful he was of Constitutional semantics.
III: Right not to be stuck housing soldiers in your home. Private.
True, though since the army as such is and has been a Federal institution, it doesn't really restrict state law in any meaningful way. It can easily be read as a guarantee to individual states that the Federal government won't impose on the hospitality of their respective citizens.
Interestingly (and as an aside), Alistair Cooke in his US history documentary series claims that Amendment III still allows for American soldiers to be housed in the private residences of foreign (specifically, British) nationals, and that the old legal precedence established for this allowed for American soldiers to be quartered in British homes during World War 2. I have seen no second source confirming this, but I suppose it's possible the question could have been raised during, say, the War of 1812.
IV: Right against unreasonable search + seizure. Private.
Not actually binding on state and local law until Wolf v. Colorado in 1949.
V: Due process, etc.. Private.
In practice only made binding on the states with the passage of Amendment XIV.
VI: Speedy & public trial, etc.. Private.
Same as above. Did not in practice extend to most Americans until the Supreme Court took the states to task over Amendment XIV, well into the 20th Century.
VII: Trial by jury. Private.
The wording here is "any Court of the United States", which I strongly suspect was taken to mean "any Federal Court" up until the passing of Amendment XIV at the earliest.
VIII: No excessive bail. Definitely private (how exactly would you bail a state?)
Look to the story of Francisco Pizarro and Atahualpa for an answer to your question. :-P
Admittedly, ransom and bail are not quite the same, but setting a ridiculously high bail for a prominent individual suspect (such as a state representative or notable) could conceivably be used to screw over the entire state politically. And who else would you even want to set a ridiculously high bail for, except a politically troublesome person?
IX: Naming some rights does not disparage others held by the people. Private.
An entirely vague amendment which, again, places no inherent limits on state and local law. It's been used to argue both for and against the legality of abortion.
X: Powers not named for the federal gov't in the Constitution are reserved to the States, or to the people. State + private.
Entirely States' rights except in the Territories, and in the Territories it wouldn't infringe on States' rights anyway.
In conclusion, I should note that the source I'm basing a lot of my understanding on is American Government - Roots and Reform, by Karen O'Connor and Larry Sabato.
-
Natalcya:
Now you're making better sense. However you (and your source) should be extremely cautious when trying to read the framers' minds. What the hell was going through the framers' heads as they established both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is profoundly unclear, a core flaw of "constitutional originalism" as practiced by the likes of Clarence Thomas. A few of them left us their thoughts, but the idea of the framers as some kind of divinely inspired writers' circle working on consensus is a myth. The framers were a fractious lot, almost as divided as Congress is today. The quarrel over "States' rights" in the U.S. is longstanding, and existed in spades at the time.
We fought a civil war over it, and the damned issue still isn't dead.
The Bill of Rights may have been largely interpreted to protect individuals from the federal, not state, government for many a long year, but bear in mind who was being protected. It's mostly not the states, even if they once were allowed to engage in behavior the federal gov't was not. "Not binding on the states" is not the same as "protecting the states."
-
Oh, I'm not intending to promote constitutional originalism. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I really don't think the intentions of the original creators necessarily should have any impact on how a law is interpreted 200 years after it's made. Interpretations (and the laws themselves) need to evolve with the times, certainly.
As a historian (not as a lawyer, mind, which I'm not by a far stretch), however, I am still compelled to try to make sense of past decisions, which does involve a certain amount of mind-reading. I do agree with you completely that the Framers were a fractious lot, and I don't see the Bill of Rights (or the Constitution as a whole, for that matter) as being divinely inspired at all. What I see is a politically sensible compromise which a majority of the delegates were able to agree upon, well designed to soothe the worries some of the thirteen countries (as i essentially see the states as originally being) making up the Union at the time might have about the Federal government infringing on their local sovereignty. The fact that the states were not required to guarantee these same rights to their respective citizens, and historically did not for a long time in numerous ways, seems to support this interpretation.
My comment about the 2nd Amendment was not intended as a value judgement, but as an input to the already ongoing discussion about that amendment taking place in this thread. It was intended to challenge the impression some people seem to have about the Bill of Rights always having guaranteed these rights to every citizen anywhere in the United States. It's taken a whole lot of history and a couple extra amendments for it to get from where it was originally to where it is now, and that's the argument I was trying to make.
-
I love this discussion, but maybe this should be split into a thread about the U.S.?